SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
January 10, 2011
62-41 WOODHAVEN MEDICAL, P.C. AS ASSIGNEE OF WILSON RODRIGUEZ,
ADIRONDACK INS. EXCHANGE C/O ONE BEACON INS. CO.,
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered June 11, 2009.
62-41 Woodhaven Med., P.C. v Adirondack Ins. Exch.
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on January 10, 2011
PRESENT: GOLIA, J.P., PESCE and STEINHARDT, JJ
The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking to compel plaintiff to produce copies of its corporate tax returns and its tax records regarding its professional employees, and provided that the complaint would be dismissed in the event plaintiff failed to produce these documents.
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 moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved, pursuant to CPLR 3126, to dismiss the complaint due to plaintiff's failure to provide the information requested in defendant's interrogatories and defendant's notice for discovery and inspection or, in the alternative, to compel plaintiff to provide such information. Plaintiff appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of the Civil Court's order as granted the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking to compel plaintiff to produce copies of its corporate tax returns and its tax records regarding its professional employees, and provided that the complaint would be dismissed in the event plaintiff failed to produce these documents.
Defendant's cross motion papers set forth detailed and specific reasons for believing that plaintiff is ineligible to recover no-fault benefits because plaintiff fails to meet applicable state and local licensing requirements (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-3.16 [a] ; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 ). As defendant's cross motion papers were sufficient to establish that special circumstances exist which warrant disclosure of plaintiff's corporate tax returns and its professional employees' tax records (see CPLR 3101; One Beacon Ins. Group, LLC v Midland Med. Care, P.C., 54 AD3d 738 ; Great Wall Acupuncture v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 136[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51529[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; Statewide Med. Servs., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 134[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52014[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2006], revg 9 Misc 3d 1124[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51773[U] [Civ Ct, Bronx County 2005]; see also Dore v Allstate Indem. Co., 264 AD2d 804 ; cf. Benfeld v Fleming Props., LLC, 44 AD3d 599, 600 ; Altidor v State-Wide Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 435 ), the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
Golia, J.P., Pesce and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.