Here, the appellants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that Stemerman, a licensed physician, was the sole shareholder of Proscan, performed or oversaw all medical services provided by Proscan, and was the sole signatory on Proscan’s bank account.
However, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidentiary proof to raise an issue of fact as to whether Proscan was actually controlled by a management company owned by unlicensed individuals in violation of the Business Corporation Law (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d at 320-321; Montgomery Medical P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 12 Misc 3d 1169[A]; A.T. Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Misc 3d 568, 569; cf. A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 137[A]). Accordingly, the appellants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied with respect to all three causes of action, which allege fraudulent incorporation.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for disclosure of certain financial documents. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the plaintiffs were not required to make a showing of “good cause” for such disclosure (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d at 322; see Matter of Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Insurance Cos. Represented by Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, 13 Misc 3d 970, 972-973), as the documents were “material and necessary in the prosecution” of this action (see CPLR 3101[a]).
