Countrywide Insurance v. DHD Medical, P.C.

86 A.D.3d 431, 926 N.Y.2d 293
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 7, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Petitioner argues that respondent is a fraudulently incorporated medical services provider and therefore is not only ineligible for reimbursement of no-fault payments (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]) but is also precluded from demanding arbitration pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (b) (and the no-fault policy issued by petitioner). Contrary to this argument, the defense of fraudulent incorporation is “for the arbitrator and not for the courts” (see Matter of Nassau Ins. Co. v McMorris, 41 NY2d 701, 701 [1977]; Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 [2010]). Indeed, it has been the subject of numerous arbitration proceedings (see e.g. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Kissena Med. Imaging, P.C., 25 Misc 3d 1214[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52094[U] [2009]; Uptodate Med. Serv., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 128[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50046[U], *2 [2009]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Countrywide Insurance v. DHD Medical, P.C., 86 A.D.3d 431, 926 N.Y.2d 293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

86 A.D.3d 431 (Countrywide Insurance v. DHD Medical, P.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

ENS Med., P.C. v. Nationwide Ins. Co.
2026 NY Slip Op 26033 (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2026)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Raia Medical Health, P.C.
140 A.D.3d 1029 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Excel Imaging, P.C.
879 F. Supp. 2d 243 (E.D. New York, 2012)