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) 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; Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care Diagnostic P.C., 73 AD3d 667). 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]; Uptodate Med. Sew., PC. 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.