Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing attorney fee coverage, with 165 published articles analyzing attorney fee 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.
In New York no-fault insurance law, timing is everything when it comes to raising defenses against medical provider claims. Insurance companies typically have just 30 days to deny claims, but there’s a narrow exception known as the “Mallela defense” that allows extended time limits for certain coverage-related challenges. Understanding the distinction between this specialized defense and standard over-billing claims can mean the difference between a successful challenge and paying attorney fees.
The recent Court-Wide Insurance case highlights a crucial distinction that practitioners in New York no-fault insurance law must understand. When an insurance company attempts to raise defenses outside the standard 30-day window, courts scrutinize whether the challenge truly qualifies for the Mallela exception or falls into ordinary coverage disputes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Acupuncture, P.C.2018 NY Slip Op 08238 (1st Dept. 2018)
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.
This was an interesting case that discusses the distinction between the defenses of “Mallela” and “over-billing”.
“We find that petitioner’s defense is not a Mallela defense. It is based on the guilty plea of Andrey Anikeyev, who, according to petitioner, is respondent’s “de facto owner,” to conspiracy to commit health care fraud and mail fraud. Anikeyev pleaded guilty to billing insurance companies “for health care services for time periods in excess of the actual time period the patient spent with acupuncturist.” This plea supports nothing more than “a defense that the billed-for services were never rendered,” which is “more like a normal’ exception from coverage (e.g., a policy exclusion) a lack of coverage in the first instance” (Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co., 10 NY3d 556, 565 ), and therefore does not fall into the “settled law recognizing a narrow exception to the 30-day deadline for defenses based on lack of coverage”
And then comes the real nail in the coffin: “Respondent is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees for this appeal, to be determined by Supreme Court”
Key Takeaway
Courts carefully distinguish between true Mallela defenses (which challenge fundamental coverage issues) and standard over-billing claims. When insurance companies mischaracterize billing fraud as a Mallela defense to avoid the 30-day deadline, they risk not only losing the case but also paying the medical provider’s attorney fees—a costly consequence that underscores the importance of properly categorizing coverage defenses.
Related Articles
- Attorney Fee Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- Understanding Collateral Estoppel in New York No-Fault Insurance Coverage Disputes
- When Summary Judgment Applies to Non-Covered Losses in No-Fault Cases
- Business Record Requirements for Proving Motor Vehicle Accidents
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
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.
Keep Reading
More Attorney fee Analysis
IME no-show is a policy defense triggering the hourly attorney fee provision
Learn how IME no-show defenses trigger hourly attorney fee provisions in NY no-fault insurance. Court rules failure to attend IME is policy defense.
May 22, 2021
Under an abuse of discretion standard, the Third DCA refuses to apply 65-4.6(e)
Third DCA refuses to apply NY no-fault regulation 65-4.6(e) under abuse of discretion standard in Advanced Physical Therapy v.
Apr 28, 2021
MVAIC is at it again
New York appellate court ruling reveals ongoing jurisdictional split over MVAIC exhaustion requirements in no-fault insurance coverage disputes.
Oct 17, 2019
Loss Transfer limitations
New York no-fault insurance loss transfer limitations and mandatory arbitration procedures under Insurance Law § 5105. Court ruling on arbitrator authority.
Aug 10, 2015
MVAIC should have sought the information through verification
MVAIC case establishes insurers must seek coverage information through verification before challenging qualified person status in NY no-fault claims
Feb 3, 2014
MVAIC continues to dig its grave at the Appellate Division
MVAIC faces setbacks at Appellate Division as courts consistently rule against its coverage defenses, requiring proof of lack-of-coverage claims in NY no-fault cases.
Oct 8, 2010Was 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 attorney fee 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.
