Key Takeaway
Court of Appeals grants leave in Progressive v Carothers case, creating rare four-opinion matter with certified question on Second Department's ruling
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.
New York’s appellate system contains a little-known jurisdictional restriction that caught many attorneys by surprise in the Carothers case. While most practitioners understand the Court of Appeals sits atop New York’s judicial hierarchy, few realize that this highest court lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from certain lower courts in civil matters, regardless of how important the legal question may be.
This jurisdictional limitation stems from the state constitution and affects cases originating in courts of limited jurisdiction. The restriction creates an anomalous situation where significant legal issues may receive final resolution at the Appellate Division or Appellate Term level, with no possibility of further review by the Court of Appeals—unless the Appellate Division certifies a question pursuant to CPLR 5713.
Understanding Court of Appeals Jurisdiction Limits
The Court of Appeals may not grant leave to hear civil appeals originating in Civil Court, District Court, City Court, Justice Court, County Court (in First or Second Departments), Town Court, or Village Court. This restriction exists because these courts of limited jurisdiction sit outside the Supreme Court system. Appeals from these courts typically terminate at the Appellate Term or Appellate Division level in civil matters.
However, CPLR 5713 provides a narrow exception: the Appellate Division may certify questions to the Court of Appeals when it determines that questions of law have arisen that ought to be reviewed by the state’s highest court. This certification mechanism represents the only pathway for Court of Appeals review of civil cases originating in lower courts. The Appellate Division’s discretion to certify is absolute—parties cannot demand certification as a matter of right.
Interestingly, criminal appeals follow different rules. Criminal appeals from these same lower courts to the Appellate Term or County Court (upstate) can proceed directly to the Court of Appeals if leave is granted, bypassing the Appellate Division entirely. This divergence between civil and criminal appellate pathways reflects different constitutional provisions governing the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction.
Case Background
The Progressive v. Carothers case had already generated unusual procedural history before reaching this certification stage. Dr. Andrew Carothers’s medical practice became embroiled in no-fault insurance litigation that produced opinions from Judge Sweeney at the Appellate Term, followed by a signed Appellate Division opinion—already making this a noteworthy case with published decisions at multiple levels.
When counsel initially sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, that court issued an order declaring it lacked jurisdiction to grant leave. Rather than accepting this as the final word, counsel returned to the Second Department seeking certification to the Court of Appeals under CPLR 5713. This strategic move proved successful.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis
Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Insurance Company, 2017 NY Slip Op 90794(U)(2d Dept. 2017)
For some reason, I missed this decision and order. I read the Court of Appeals order stating that the court was without jurisdiction to grant leave. Some of you may be unaware that the Court of Appeals may not grant leave to hear a civil cause that starts in the Civil Court, District Court, City Court, Justice Court, County Court (first or second departments), Town Court or Village Court. On the criminal side, an appeal from one of the above Courts to the Appellate Term or County Court (upstate) bypasses the Appellate Division and goes to the Court of Appeals (if leave is granted).
I was unaware that following the Court of Appeals order, Carothers went back to the Second Department and sought leave to appeal. Furthermore, I also was unaware that leave was actually granted. This will mean that this matter will result in four published opinions. Judge Sweeney, Appellate Term (it was not a U cite), Appellate Division (signed opinion) and now the Court of Appeals.
“ORDERED that the motion is granted, and the following question is certified to the Court of Appeals: Was the opinion and order of this Court dated April 5, 2017, properly made?
Questions of law have arisen, which, in our opinion, ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals (see CPLR 5713).”
Who would have thought.
Legal Significance of Four-Opinion Progression
The Carothers case’s progression to four published opinions represents an extraordinarily rare occurrence in no-fault insurance litigation. Most Civil Court cases never generate even one published opinion. The fact that this matter warranted review at every appellate level—Appellate Term, Appellate Division, and ultimately certification to the Court of Appeals—signals the fundamental importance of the legal questions presented.
When the Second Department certified the question “Was the opinion and order of this Court dated April 5, 2017, properly made?”, it acknowledged that its own decision raised issues requiring the Court of Appeals’ definitive resolution. This level of institutional humility is uncommon. Appellate Divisions rarely certify questions that implicitly question their own rulings, preferring to let their decisions stand as final pronouncements.
The certification demonstrates that the underlying Mallela-related issues in Carothers transcended ordinary discovery disputes. These questions likely implicated fundamental policies about medical practice, professional licensing, and the intersection between regulatory sanctions and civil litigation rights. Only issues of such statewide significance warrant the extraordinary remedy of CPLR 5713 certification.
Practical Implications for Litigators
Attorneys handling cases in Civil Court and other courts of limited jurisdiction must understand these jurisdictional pathways. When facing adverse Appellate Term or Appellate Division decisions in cases originating below the Supreme Court level, direct appeals to the Court of Appeals are not available. The only recourse is seeking CPLR 5713 certification from the Appellate Division.
To successfully obtain certification, counsel must persuade the Appellate Division that the legal questions presented have statewide importance and require the Court of Appeals’ authoritative resolution. Standard arguments about erroneous fact-finding or misapplication of settled law will not suffice. The questions must involve novel legal issues, conflicting precedent, or matters of substantial public importance.
The Carothers litigation illustrates that persistence can pay off when jurisdictional obstacles appear insurmountable. After the Court of Appeals declared lack of jurisdiction, counsel’s decision to seek certification under CPLR 5713 proved strategically sound. This approach required understanding the distinction between direct appeals (unavailable) and certified questions (potentially available at the Appellate Division’s discretion).
Related Articles
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
Preponderance on a Mallela case
Court rejects preponderance vs. clear and convincing evidence standard argument in Mallela defense case involving unlicensed professional corporation control.
Jun 22, 2015
Mallela defense must be arbitrated upon demand of Applicant
Court rules that Mallela fraudulent incorporation defenses must be decided by arbitrators, not courts, when applicants demand arbitration under no-fault law.
Jul 8, 2011
Appellate Term holds CPLR 3212(f) relief is inappropriate under three separate circumstances
Analysis of Appellate Term decision limiting CPLR 3212(f) relief in three circumstances. Essential guidance for NY civil practice and discovery strategy.
Feb 25, 2010
Failure to cooperate
Court ruling on no-fault insurance coverage denial due to provider's failure to cooperate at examination under oath and unlicensed practice violations.
Oct 28, 2017Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What are Mallela issues in no-fault insurance?
Mallela issues refer to a defense based on State Farm v. Mallela (2006), where the Court of Appeals held that insurers can deny no-fault claims to medical providers who operate fraudulent enterprises. Under Mallela, if a provider is controlled by unlicensed individuals in violation of Business Corporation Law §1507 or Education Law, the provider is not eligible to receive no-fault reimbursement. Insurers use Mallela defenses in declaratory judgment actions and as affirmative defenses in collection actions.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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.
