Stipulation does not serve as collateral estoppel

All Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50870(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

Remember the stipulation where the releasee agreed that the medical provider was properly formed and complied with all applicable licensing laws?  At some point, you might have signed one and rued the consequences for the carelesness.  Well, today, it is okay.

Stipulations on licensing compliance and collateral estoppel

(1) “With respect to defendant’s cross motion, plaintiff contends that defendant is not entitled to any discovery regarding whether plaintiff is a professional service corporation which fails to comply with applicable state or local licensing laws (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 ) because defendant previously entered into stipulations, in unrelated actions, which, among other things, stated that, as of the date the stipulations were entered into, plaintiff was “in full compliance with any licensing requirements affecting its right to obtain reimbursement under the applicable No Fault laws and regulations.” However, as the issue was resolved in a stipulation and not after it was actually litigated, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable”

But the SIU file?  It is discoverable.

Is the SIU file prepared solely for litigation?

(2) “To avoid having to produce its SIU file, defendant had to establish that its SIU file was prepared solely for litigation (Landmark Ins. Co. v Beau Rivage Rest., 121 AD2d 98, 101 ; see also Bombard v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 647 ). As defendant failed to demonstrate that it had decided to deny plaintiff’s claims prior to commencing its investigation, the contents of defendant’s SIU file are not privileged and are discoverable (Bombard, 11 AD3d at 648).”

And of course, Mallela discovery is always allowed

Mallela discovery demands under CPLR 3101

(3) “Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant sufficiently demonstrated that defendant’s discovery demands which concerned a Mallela defense are “material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” (CPLR 3101 ; All Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 131, 2013 NY Slip Op 51124 ; Medical Polis, P.C. v Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 153, 2012 NY Slip Op 50342 ). Defendant further established its entitlement to depose Vladimir Grinberg and plaintiff’s owner, Dr. John Braun”

Related Articles

• NY EBT Venue Rules: When Courts Grant Undue Hardship Exceptions for Depositions
• Appellate Term holds CPLR 3212(f) relief is inappropriate under three separate circumstances
• Read the stipulation….
• The failure of an assignor to appear for an EBT is not a basis for a 3126 sanction against the assignee
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 decision, New York courts have continued to refine the application of collateral estoppel principles in no-fault litigation, and discovery standards regarding SIU files and licensing compliance may have evolved through subsequent appellate decisions and regulatory amendments. Practitioners should verify current case law interpretations and any updates to CPLR provisions governing discovery in no-fault insurance disputes.