A conclusory statement is insufficient to raise an issue of fact that a signature was "faxed" or "electronic"

Last reviewed: September 2026

Ortho-Med rejected a signature objection that supplied no factual basis. The Appellate Term expressly did not reach the insurer’s reply papers, so this decision should not be cited as approving new evidence first submitted in reply.

Historical note: Ortho-Med did not decide the reply-evidence issue; read its 2010 signature dispute with the current CPLR 2106 guide rather than as a universal execution rule.

The holding was narrower than the reply dispute

In Ortho-Med Surgical Supply v Mercury Casualty, 2010 NY Slip Op 50587(U), decided March 31, 2010, the insurer supported its medical-necessity motion with an affirmed peer review. The provider’s sole objection was that the physician had not personally signed it.

The court distinguished a properly supported signature challenge from the unexplained assertion before it. Because the provider gave no reason for believing the signature was stamped or a facsimile, it raised no factual issue. The judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed without deciding the reply questions.

Jason’s account below supplies his recollection of the motion and appeal. It is preserved separately from the published holding.

What remains to check on a modern submission

The broader affirmation option now appears in CPLR 2106. State Technology Law 304(2) also recognizes electronic signatures unless law specifically provides otherwise. Neither provision makes authenticity or evidentiary sufficiency irrelevant.

Explain the actual basis of an execution objection. Conversely, do not assume an unsupported objection means any later reply material may be considered. Ortho-Med avoided that question; Park Slope addressed a record warranting a limited signature hearing.

Jason’s original commentary

Jason’s original April 2010 account follows, including its existing wording. The published court expressly left the reply issues undecided.

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.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the CPLR 2001 mistakes and irregularities hub.

• Park Slope: a properly raised signature dispute
• Manhattan Medical: an unexplained signature objection
• Amercure: a withdrawn publication
• 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.