Opinion
No. 2010–2135 Q C.
2012-01-24
Q–B JEWISH MED. REHABILITATION, P.C. as Assignee of Roman Abramov, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered February 9, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant's motion to vacate the notice of trial and compel plaintiff to provide responses to its discovery demands to the extent of conditionally vacating the notice of trial if plaintiff failed to, among other things, provide defendant with W–2 and 1099 forms for named individuals, as well as plaintiff's federal tax returns and schedules by the time the case “come[s] up for trial.”
Present: WESTON, J.P., PESCE and RIOS, JJ.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order as granted defendant's motion to vacate the notice of trial and compel plaintiff to provide responses to its discovery demands to the extent of conditionally vacating the notice of trial if plaintiff failed to, among other things, provide defendant with W–2 and 1099 forms for named individuals, as well as plaintiff's federal tax returns and schedules by the time the case “come[s] up for trial.”
The notice of trial and certificate of readiness filed by plaintiff contained the erroneous statement that discovery had been completed. As a result, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court's order which granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking to vacate the notice of trial and strike the matter from the trial calendar to the extent of conditionally striking the notice of trial so plaintiff could provide the discovery which defendant had requested ( see Citywide Social Work & Psychological Servs., PLLC v. Autoone Ins. Co., 32 Misc.3d 130[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 51308[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Allstate Social Work & Psychological Svcs, PLLC v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 29 Misc.3d 142[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 52162[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010] ).
Defendant set forth detailed and specific reasons for believing that plaintiff is a professional service corporation which fails to comply with applicable state or local licensing laws and, thus, ineligible to recover no-fault benefits ( see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005] ), a defense which is not precluded (Multiquest, P.L.L.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 17 Misc.3d 37 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ). By obtaining discovery of certain documents, such as plaintiff's financial and tax records, as well as W–2 or 1099 forms for individuals who provided the services at issue, defendant will be able to ascertain whether plaintiff is ineligible for reimbursement of no-fault benefits ( see e.g. CPLR 3101[a]; One Beacon Ins. Group, LLC v. Midland Med. Care, P.C., 54 AD3d 738 [2008];see also Q–B Jewish Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 32 Misc.3d 139[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 51551[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011] ).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.