In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Belt Parkway Imaging, P.C. (33 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2006]), the Appellate Division held that insurers could deny claims for services performed prior to April 4, 2002 because the "clear import" of the regulation was that unlicensed providers were no longer eligible for reimbursement as of the regulation's effective date. The court reasoned that "ameliorative or remedial legislation" should be given retroactive effect to effectuate its "beneficial purpose," and similar effect should be given to an ameliorative or remedial regulation (id. at 408). The court noted that the purpose of 11 NYCR 65-3.16 was "to combat fraud," and the regulation's notice of adoption urged that the public receive "the benefits of reduced fraud and abuse . . . at the earliest possible moment" (33 AD3d at 409). The court ruled that section65-3.16 did not "impair vested rights" and noted that Mallela itself involved "pre-April 4, 2002 claims" (33 AD3d at 409, 408, 823 NYS2d 9).