Key Takeaway
Park Slope ordered a limited signature hearing on a properly raised dispute. Read the correct 2010 opinion beside Ortho-Med and current execution rules.
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
Park Slope ordered a hearing about a disputed signature, not a hearing whenever a document looked electronic. Its April 2010 ruling is worth reading beside Ortho-Med, where an unsupported signature objection failed.
Historical note: Park Slope’s 2010 limited hearing concerned a properly raised signature dispute; CPLR 2218 supplies the hearing procedure, while today’s affirmation form is covered in the CPLR 2106 update.
What Park Slope actually decided
The correct citation is Park Slope Med. & Surgical Supply v GEICO, 2010 NY Slip Op 50650(U), decided April 9, 2010. An earlier version of this page linked to slip opinion 20131, which is a different case.
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.
The provider opposed the insurer’s medical-necessity cross motion with a doctor’s affirmation. The appellate court found that the affirmation, if admissible, raised a medical issue. But the insurer had challenged the signature’s validity. The court remitted for a limited hearing under CPLR 2218 and a new determination of the cross motion afterward. It did not decide the signature was genuine or that the provider would win.
CPLR 2218 permits a separately tried factual issue raised on a motion. Park Slope applied that procedure to the particular dispute before it; a demand for a hearing still needs an actual factual issue.
Read the signature cases together
Ortho-Med rejected an assertion that gave no reason to believe the signature was stamped. Jason’s reaction below records his frustration with the decisions as they appeared. Their different records matter when comparing them.
Electronic execution is not automatically invalid. State Technology Law 304(2) recognizes electronic signatures unless law specifically provides otherwise. Authentication and the substantive sufficiency of the medical report remain separate questions.
Jason’s original commentary
Jason’s original April 2010 reaction follows. Its comparison reflects the cases as he encountered them, not a finding that today’s signature law is irreconcilable.
Dave Gottlieb over at NFP commented on this one. I will add that this case is now at odds with the recently decided case of Ortho-Med Surgical Supply, Inc. v Mercury Cas. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50587(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010). Will somebody on the 15th Floor at 141 Livingston Street make up their mind with how this issue should be resolved?
Please. My work flow is being impacted!
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the CPLR 2001 mistakes and irregularities hub.
- Ortho-Med: why the reply issue was not reached
- 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.
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
What do CPLR § 2309 and CPLR § 2106 have in common?
Crossbridge distinguishes an available exhaustion defense from admissible proof. Read the majority, dissent and later guidance on out-of-state affidavits.
Jul 8, 2009
Submit order?
Court rules on 60-day submission deadline for proposed orders in NY litigation, explaining when 22 NYCRR 202.48 applies and procedural requirements.
Sep 17, 2014
Affidavit Notarized on a Different Date Than Drafted? Still Admissible in New York
New York appellate ruling holds an affidavit need not be signed and notarized the same day it was drafted — what proper notarization requires for admissibility.
Feb 15, 2013
Proof akin to that in opposition to a motion for summary judgement necessary to defeat a 3216 motion
Court compares CPLR 3216 motion standards to summary judgment opposition burden, highlighting conflicting departmental approaches to meritorious cause requirements in NY...
Oct 8, 2010Was 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.
