Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the branch of the appellants-respondents' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against them, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the appellants-respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiffs seek, inter alia, enforcement of a contract to pay profit distributions calculated, in part, on referrals they and other doctors made to the appellants-respondents' practice. Since this agreement between the parties was illegal because it violated Federal Medicare law ( 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b), was against public policy, and was proscribed by regulations enacted by the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services ( 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952 [d]), it is unenforceable ( see, Long Meadow Assocs. v. City of Glen Cove, 203 A.D.2d 262; Little Princess Truck Rentals v. Pergament Distribs., 143 A.D.2d 179; Nursing Home Consultants v. Quantum Health Servs., 926 F. Supp. 835, affd 112 F.3d 513; Modern Med. Labs. v. Smith-Kline Beecham Clinical Labs., 1994 U.S. Dist LEXIS 11525 [ND Ill]; Medical Dev. Network v. Professional Respiratory Care/Home Med. Equip. Servs., 673 So.2d 565 [Fla]).
In light of this determination, the parties' remaining contentions are academic.
Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.