Key Takeaway
Amercure's opinion was withdrawn from publication, not proven vacated. Read Jason's dated reaction with the later Park Slope signature-hearing decision.
This article is part of our ongoing hypo-technical defects coverage, with 187 published articles analyzing hypo-technical defects issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Last reviewed: September 2026
The official reporter marks Amercure’s March 2010 opinion as withdrawn from publication. That is what the record establishes. It does not establish that the judgment was vacated or that signature hearings disappeared from New York practice.
Historical note: The official Amercure entry confirms withdrawal from publication, not an end to signature hearings; Park Slope later ordered one, and current statement form is addressed in the CPLR 2106 update.
What the withdrawal proves
The official entry for Amercure Acupuncture v GEICO, 2010 NY Slip Op 20098, identifies the March 16, 2010 decision and says the opinion was withdrawn from publication at the court’s direction. It supplies no explanation for that direction.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
This archive formerly reproduced a Westlaw version with session-bound links. Those links and the long reproduction have been removed. The reporter’s withdrawal notice is the source for the publication status; no unverified later docket event is presented as fact.
Hearings did not end with this publication
On April 9, 2010, Park Slope Medical v GEICO remitted a properly raised signature dispute for a limited hearing. CPLR 2218 remains the statutory procedure for separately trying a factual issue raised on a motion.
The contrast with Ortho-Med is useful: that court found an unexplained assertion of a stamped signature insufficient. Withdrawal of one publication does not supply a rule for every other motion.
Jason’s reaction and the limits of the record
Jason’s comments below preserve the contemporary uncertainty. His suggestion that administrative calls prompted the withdrawal was speculation, not a reason documented in the reporter. His phrase “void ab initio” should not be read as proof that the court vacated its judgment. The later Westlaw availability note is also historical, not a statement about access today.
For present execution requirements, CPLR 2106 and State Technology Law 304 require a separate analysis from the fate of this 2010 publication.
Jason’s original commentary
Jason’s original March 2010 comments follow. The suggested administrative explanation is expressly unverified, and the quoted remedy assessment is not evidence of vacatur.
In short, the Appellate Term proposed framed issue hearings on whether a signature was stamped, faxed or affixed in a non-holographic manner, in order to resolve this issue when raised in a summary judgment motion. I suspect someone at OCA or some of the administrative judges placed a few phone calls to the panel of Justices on this case, and now this proposed remedy is void ab initio. In my opinion, the holding of a framed issue hearing is not the worst the idea in the world. Why don’t they have a designated JHO part, like they have in Supreme Kings for these types of hearings?
As the law stands, based upon the last published pronouncement of the Appellate Term, the objector must present some evidence to show that the affixed signature is stamped in order to defeat a motion on this ground.
FURTHER RESEARCH REVEALS THAT THIS CASE HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED FROM WESTLAW (YET). Here it is:
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the CPLR 2001 mistakes and irregularities hub.
- Park Slope: a properly raised signature dispute
- Ortho-Med: why the reply issue was not reached
- Manhattan Medical: an unexplained signature objection
- Bacon & Seiler: corrected form and missing proof
- Current CPLR 2106: affirmation form, amendments and exceptions
For review of a particular motion or no-fault defense record, contact the office.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More Hypo-technical defects Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Address the judge as 'Your Honor,' stand when you speak, wait to be recognized, and keep answers short and honest. A Long Island trial lawyer explains.
Feb 24, 2026
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
Punch drunk off CPLR 3212(g)
Analysis of CPLR 3212(g) motion practice and trial issue limitations in New York no-fault insurance litigation, examining Quality Med.
Dec 13, 2010
The Failure to Place Evidence in Proper Form Cannot Be Cured in a Supplemental Opposition
McMullin v Walker: defective medical reports, an improper surreply correction, and why CPLR 2214(c) does not ban every supplemental submission.
Dec 20, 2009
Waiver through silence
Grace v NYC Transit case demonstrates how failing to object to jury instructions and verdict sheets results in waiver, requiring fundamental error for appellate review.
Dec 4, 2014
Failure to comply with 2106 is somewhat excusable
Loucks v Klimek: a Florida expert’s curable 2013 affirmation defect, the default-relief context and how the 2024 and 2025 CPLR 2106 changes alter the lesson.
Jul 7, 2013Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a hypo-technical defects matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
