Key Takeaway
Court ruling shows lack of evidence for Mallela defense in no-fault insurance case involving professional corporation ownership and control requirements.
This article is part of our ongoing mallela issues coverage, with 32 published articles analyzing mallela issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 08007 (2d Dept. 2017)
(1) “However, “ provider of health care services is not eligible for reimbursement under section 5102(a)(1) of the Insurance Law if the provider fails to meet any applicable New York State or local licensing requirement necessary to perform such service in New York” (11 NYCRR 65-3.16). “State law mandates that professional service corporations be owned and controlled only by licensed professionals” (One Beacon Ins. Group, LLC v Midland Med. Care, P.C., 54 AD3d 738, 740; see Business Corporation Law §§ 1503; 1507, 1508). Thus, an insurance carrier may withhold payment for medical services provided by a professional corporation which has been “fraudulently incorporated” to allow nonphysicians to share in its ownership and control”
(2) “Thus, this evidence did not demonstrate, prima facie, that Anikeyev exercised dominion and control over the defendants and their assets and shared the risks, expenses, and interest in their profits and losses, or that he had a significant role in the guidance, management, and direction of their business (see Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 150 AD3d at 201). Moreover, even assuming, as the plaintiffs do, that the presence of the forfeited funds in the defendants’ bank accounts demonstrated some level of control by Anikeyev over the bank accounts, such control could not, on its own, support a finding that he owned and controlled the defendants ”
It is interesting that the regulation (65-3.16) is limited to the situation where the medical provider is “controlled” by an ineligible professional. The evidence, which various arbitrators, master arbitrators and the First Department have ruled upon, does not conclusively support this showing.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Related Articles
- Professional Service LLC Dissolution in NY: When Medical Licenses Are Suspended
- Understanding Mallela-Based Discovery in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- Interesting Mallela case from the Appellate Term, Second Department
- Why does a Malella defense survive an untimely disclaimer, while a workers compensation defense doesn’t?
- Mallela Violations as Legal Malpractice Defense Strategy – Long Island & NYC
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2017 post, 11 NYCRR Part 65 has undergone several amendments, particularly regarding provider licensing requirements under section 65-3.16 and professional corporation ownership standards. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent appellate decisions interpreting Insurance Law § 5102(a)(1) licensing requirements, as enforcement standards and documentation requirements may have evolved.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Mallela Fraud Defense in No-Fault Insurance
The Mallela defense — named after the Court of Appeals decision in State Farm v. Mallela — allows insurers to deny no-fault claims by proving that a medical provider fraudulently incorporated to circumvent licensing requirements. Establishing a Mallela defense requires extensive investigation and evidence of corporate structure, ownership, and control. These articles analyze the Mallela doctrine, its procedural requirements, and the evolving case law that shapes how courts evaluate fraudulent incorporation claims in no-fault practice.
32 published articles in Mallela issues
Keep Reading
More Mallela issues Analysis
Wind it up
Professional corporation can continue operating and seek no-fault benefits despite revoked license, according to NY Appellate Term ruling on Business Corporation Law requirements.
Mar 17, 2021
Discovery penalty: dismissal
NY court dismisses medical provider's no-fault case for discovery violations and refusal to answer deposition questions about doctor's business interests
Apr 30, 2019
A Mallela defense does not have to be pleaded
Appellate Term rules Mallela defense doesn't require formal pleading - adequate allegations of fraudulent incorporation sufficient for discovery rights
Mar 2, 2012
Understanding Mallela-Based Discovery in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
Expert guidance on Mallela-based discovery in New York no-fault insurance cases. Protecting Long Island & NYC healthcare providers. Call (516) 750-0595.
Mar 26, 2010
Carothers to the COA (I missed it)
Court of Appeals grants leave in Progressive v Carothers case, creating rare four-opinion matter with certified question on Second Department's ruling
Feb 21, 2018
Reversal of Supreme Court's vacatur on a First Department 75
First Department reverses Supreme Court's vacatur of arbitration award involving Mallela defense burden of proof in no-fault insurance reimbursement case.
Jun 30, 2016Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a mallela issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
