Opinion
No. 2010–1684 Q C.
2012-05-11
MEDICAL POLIS, P.C. as Assignee of Veronica Richardson, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE INS. CO., Respondent.
Present PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered May 10, 2010. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking to compel disclosure and thereafter to produce plaintiff's owner, Nikolai Lagoduke, for an examination before trial, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for a protective order and for summary judgment.
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 of the Civil Court as granted the branches of defendant's motion seeking to compel disclosure and thereafter to produce plaintiff's owner, Nikolai Lagoduke, for an examination before trial, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for a protective order and for summary judgment.
Notwithstanding defendant's failure to assert in its answer a defense pursuant to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mallela (4 NY3d 313 [2005] ), it was not precluded from seeking discovery related to that defense, since defendant made sufficient allegations in its moving papers that plaintiff, a professional service corporation, is ineligible to recover no-fault benefits because it fails to comply with applicable state or local licensing requirements (Lexington Acupuncture, P.C. v. General Assur. Co., 35 Misc.3d 42, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 22047 [App Term, 2d, 11th & [Slip Op. 2]13th Jud Dists 2012]; Medical Polis, P.C. v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 34 Misc.3d 153[A], 2012 N.Y. Slip Op 50342[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012] ). Consequently, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the branches of defendant's motion seeking to compel disclosure and thereafter to produce plaintiff's owner, Nikolai Lagoduke, for an examination before trial. In light of the foregoing, the court properly denied plaintiff's cross motion for a protective order and summary judgment ( seeCPLR 3212[f] ).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.