Key Takeaway
Court rules conclusory statements insufficient to challenge faxed or electronic signatures in no-fault insurance cases without proper evidence of forgery.
This article is part of our ongoing hypo-technical defects coverage, with 186 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.
In another care where I was the Respondent – I sometimes win these motions in the Civil Courts – Plaintiff appealed the finding of the Civil Court that I presented admissible evidence to demonstrate the supplies were not medically appropriate. However, you will not get the full history of the case from reading the opinion. I will give it to you here.
I moved for summary judgment on the basis that the supplies lacked medical necessity. The propounded medical evidence consisted of an affirmed peer report and the documents that were relied upon. A separate affirmation attesting to the fact that the peer review was the doctor’s executed document was not included. This was inadvertent on my part.
Plaintiff opposed on the sole ground that the peer doctor’s signature was faxed or computer generated.
I replied and included an affirmation of the peer review doctor saying otherwise.
Civil Court granted me summary judgment based upon my tendering of admissible evidence to demonstrate that the supplies were not medically appropriate.
Plaintiff appealed. His main contention on appeal was that the reply consisted of new evidence that should not have been considered. My answering brief said that Plaintiff was wrong, and I included cases that were on point.
The Appellate Term affirmed the finding of the Civil Court, but for reasons that were different from those of the Civil Court. The Appellate Term quoted a case that they decided after the submission of the briefs in the case, entitled “Eden Med., P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co.”.
Consequently, Plaintiff’s objections to the evidence set forth in the Reply was rendered academic since he failed to offer evidence stating that the peer reviewer’s signature on the underlying peer review was not holographic.
Ortho-Med Surgical Supply, Inc. v Mercury Cas. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50587(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
“However, in the instant case, plaintiff’s mere conclusory assertion that the peer review report contained a stamped or facsimile signature, without any indication as to why [*2]plaintiff held such belief, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Eden Med., P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 140, 2010 NY Slip Op 50265 ). In view of the foregoing, we need not consider any issues raised in defendant’s
reply papers.”
Related Articles
- [Addressing signature authenticity challenges requires more than mere allegations](It takes more than a mere allegation that a signature is not holographic in order to invoke the “stamped signature” rule. Also, a form defect can be fixed in reply.)
- Understanding framed issue hearings for electronically signed documents
- How procedural defects in peer review can impact insurance defense
- The short-lived nature of framed issue hearings on stamped signature cases
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
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
Practical guide on how to talk to a judge in New York courts. Proper forms of address, courtroom behavior, and tips from Long Island attorney Jason Tenenbaum. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 24, 2026CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
NY CPLR 2106 amendment eliminates notarized affidavits and certificates of conformity. Learn how this changes litigation practice. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 18, 2026A new day for decisions…
Navigate NY no-fault insurance procedural requirements. Long Island attorney Jason Tenenbaum helps with claims, denials. Call 516-750-0595 free consultation.
Dec 10, 2008Motion to strike “3212(g) findings” denied
Court denies motion to strike CPLR 3212(g) findings in no-fault case, but leaves open question about plaintiff's appeal rights when judges refuse to make such findings.
May 26, 2014Subsequent MSJ is okay
New York courts may allow subsequent summary judgment motions when substantively valid and serving justice, despite general discouragement of multiple motions.
May 16, 2012The First Department's newest inconsistent position on 2309
New York's First Department demonstrates inconsistent application of CPLR 2309 certificate requirements for foreign affidavits, creating unpredictable outcomes for practitioners.
May 2, 2010Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a hypo-technical defect in a no-fault case?
A hypo-technical defect refers to a minor, non-substantive error in a document or filing — such as a wrong date, minor formatting issue, or clerical mistake. New York courts distinguish between hypo-technical defects (which may be overlooked) and substantive defects (which can be fatal to a claim or defense).
When will courts overlook a technical defect?
Courts may overlook a defect if it is truly minor and did not prejudice the opposing party. For example, a small typographical error in a verification request may be excused if the substance of the request was clear. However, if the defect affected the recipient's ability to respond or comply, it will not be overlooked.
How does the prejudice analysis work for technical defects?
Courts evaluate whether the defect caused actual prejudice to the opposing party. If the purpose of the document was clear despite the error and the other party was not disadvantaged, the defect may be deemed hypo-technical. If the defect created confusion or prevented proper compliance, it is substantive and cannot be excused.
What are common procedural defenses in New York no-fault litigation?
Common procedural defenses include untimely denial of claims (insurers must issue denials within 30 days under 11 NYCRR §65-3.8(c)), failure to properly schedule EUOs or IMEs, defective service of process, and failure to comply with verification request requirements. Procedural compliance is critical because courts strictly enforce these requirements, and a single procedural misstep by the insurer can result in the denial being overturned.
What is the CPLR and how does it affect my case?
The New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) is the primary procedural statute governing civil litigation in New York state courts. It covers everything from service of process (CPLR 308) and motion practice (CPLR 2214) to discovery (CPLR 3101-3140), statute of limitations (CPLR 213-214), and judgments. Understanding and complying with CPLR requirements is essential for successful litigation.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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.