Mallela & Fraudulent Incorporation
Case notes on the Mallela defense: provider licensing and ownership, fraudulent incorporation, and the discovery fights that come with it.
24 articles from 2009–2021 · 0 current · 0 reviewed case notes · by Jason Tenenbaum
How the firm handles these matters
Older archive
Case notes as they were written at the time. They have not been re-checked against later decisions, so treat them as history and confirm the current rule before relying on one.
2021 (1)
2018 (1)
2017 (3)
2016 (2)
2015 (3)
2012 (2)
2011 (2)
2010 (5)
- An unproven Mallela defense will cost State Wide millions
- Ins Law 5109 and the failure to promulgate regulations thereto is not fatal to a Mallela defense
- Understanding Mallela-Based Discovery in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- Interesting Mallela case from the Appellate Term, Second Department
- Mallela Violations as Legal Malpractice Defense Strategy – Long Island & NYC
Frequently asked questions
What are Mallela issues in no-fault insurance?
"Mallela issues" concern whether a provider is eligible for reimbursement at all because of who owns or controls it. A provider that fails any applicable New York licensing requirement is not eligible (11 NYCRR 65-3.16(a)(12)). The Court of Appeals held that a medical corporation fraudulently incorporated under Business Corporation Law §§ 1507 and 1508, which require licensed-professional ownership, is not entitled to reimbursement, and that carriers may look beyond the face of licensing documents for willful and material failure to abide by state and local law; technical violations will not do (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 (2005)).