Skip to main content
EBT transcript invalid because it was not mailed to plaintiff (CPLR 3117)
Deposition transcripts

EBT transcript invalid because it was not mailed to plaintiff (CPLR 3117)

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Court rules EBT transcript inadmissible when not mailed to plaintiff per CPLR 3117, but Second Department decision conflicts with prior precedent on party depositions.

This article is part of our ongoing deposition transcripts coverage, with 187 published articles analyzing deposition transcripts 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.

Marmer v IF USA Express, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 04151 (2d Dept. 2010)

“Further, the unsigned deposition transcript of the plaintiff, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, did not constitute admissible evidence in light of the defendants’ failure to demonstrate that the transcript was forwarded to the plaintiff for her review pursuant to CPLR 3116(a)(see Martinez v 123-16 Liberty Ave. Realty Corp., 47 AD3d 901; McDonald v Mauss, 38 AD3d 727; Pina v Flik Intl. Corp., 25 AD3d 772; Santos v Intown Assoc., 17 AD3d 564).”

This decision is wrong for a few reasons.  First, the cases that  the Appellate Division cites to involve non-party depositions.  Second, the law as it relates to party depositions, as the Second Department previously held in R.M. Newell Co., Inc. v. Rice, 236 AD2d 843 (2d Dept. 1997), states the following:

“The court properly considered Richard Newell’s deposition in support of defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The transcripts were certified as accurate by the court reporter, who sent them to the witness for his review and signature. Thus, pursuant to CPLR 3116(a), the deposition is usable as though signed. In any event, any statutory proscription against the use of a transcript as a “deposition” would not preclude its use as an admission of plaintiff’s controlling principal. CPLR 3212(b) states that “written admissions” may be submitted on a summary judgment motion. Further, rules of evidence provide for admissibility of admissions of an opposing party regardless of whether they are in the form of a deposition. Thus, irrespective of whether it qualified as a “deposition” under CPLR 3116, the transcript constituted proof in admissible form ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).”

Can an admission not be used against a plaintiff on a summary judgment motion due to the failure to comply with CPLR 3116?  Has this rule now changed?  Does this make sense?


Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post was published, the Civil Practice Law and Rules provisions governing deposition transcripts and their admissibility may have been amended through legislative action or further clarified by subsequent appellate decisions. Practitioners should verify current CPLR 3116 and 3117 requirements regarding transcript certification, mailing procedures, and admissibility standards before relying on the procedural analysis discussed in this post.

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 Deposition transcripts Analysis

FAQ

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, 2026
Evidence

CPLR § 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, 2026
2106 and 2309

The fifth time 2106 was invoked

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum discusses his fifth successful challenge using CPLR 2106, preventing improper affirmations by corporate principals in litigation.

Nov 27, 2010
Coverage

Can a Declaration of Non-Coverage that Arises from a Co-Defendant's Default be Considered Collateral Estoppel Against the Appearing and Answering Defendant?

Learn about collateral estoppel and privity in NY no-fault insurance cases. Expert analysis of State Farm v. Frias for Long Island & NYC residents facing insurance disputes.

Nov 1, 2009
2106 and 2309

Certificate of conformity waived

Court rules on certificate of conformity requirements for affidavits in default judgment motions, finding waiver of CPLR 2309(a) defects is permissible.

Nov 20, 2014
Procedural Issues

Court has discretion to overlook absence of pleadings

New York courts have discretion to overlook missing pleadings in summary judgment motions when the record is sufficiently complete, per Washington Realty case.

Apr 30, 2013
View all Deposition transcripts articles

Common 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?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

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.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

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 deposition transcripts 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.

Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Discussion

Comments (5)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

A
Anonymous
Q. 1: an admission can be used. A deposition that fails to comply with 3116 cannot. That’s why we have the goddamn statute. read on Mc-T Q. 2: Newell changed the rule and now we’re back on track Q. 3: No it does not make sense. The decision in Newell stinks. It is stupid and obviously motivated by something extrinsic to the legal issue although not the case. Once again J.T. you have an aversion to the CPLR. If you like I can read it to you before you go to sleep at night. It really is a masterpiece of logic that far outshines the FRCP. Did the App Term guest host the division on the day Newell was decided. CPLR 3116(a) cannot be undone by a court’s opinion — unless a court were to hold it unconstitutional. The Courts cannot write legislation. Either can you. Let’s look at the langauge of that Jewell — Newell: “In any event, any statutory proscription against the use of a transcript as a “deposition” would not preclude its use as an admission [APPLES AND ORANGES] of plaintiff’s controlling principal.” The Court is saying that the admission exception covers depositions. No. Depositions are separate although they may contain admissions. Depositions are statutory and have a set of statutory rules that remove them from the common law. Follow the rules if you want to use the depo. There are no real statutory rules of evidence in NY beyond the Business Record Rule and rules regarding electronic signatures. “CPLR 3212(b) states that “written admissions” may be submitted on a summary judgment motion.” “WRITTEN ADMISSIONS” — THAT MEANS YOU WRITE THEM IN HAND USING A PEN, PENCIL, COMPUTER ETC — MADE AND/OR AT LEAST SIGNED BY THE PERSON MAKING THE STATEMENT/NOT TRANSCRIBED DEPOSITIONS WHEREIN A COURT REPORTER MAY NOT HAVE ACURATELY TRANSCRIBED WHAT WAS SAID FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS INCLUDING DEAFNESS –THAT’S WHY YOU HAVE 3116 SO THIS CAN BE CHECKED BY THE DEPONENT BEFORE — USE OF THE DEPO — know why you have a rule J.T. before commenting “Further, rules of evidence provide for admissibility of admissions of an opposing party regardless of whether they are in the form of a deposition” WHAT RULES/SHOW ME THEM/I HAVE A STATUTE. Besides the transcript is a second layer of hearsay. You have to bring in the Court reporter to testify as to what was stated. That is one layer of hearsay covered by the admission exception. “Thus, irrespective of whether it qualified as a “deposition” under CPLR 3116, the transcript constituted proof in admissible form …” No it most certainly did not. It was a depostion governed by statutory rules that had to be followed. THAT’S WHY WE HAVE THE GODDAMNED STATUTE. J.P. has the App Term annointed you with the ability to re-write the CPLR. Once they did it with Notices to Admit maybe they felt they could pass the torch onto you. This is not a plaintiff/defendant thing. I could give a damn. I represent the people that pay me or in many cases the causes I believe in for the heck of it. [I don’t get paid when I sue the A.G. or the Dept of Ins. I do it for fun.] I certainly don’t believe in Plaintiffs as a group. We have rules of evidence because people are easily swayed by B.S. Look at the “birther movement” and all the people that thought the “K” on Snapple meant “KKK” instead of Kosher. So, J.T., we have these well crafted rules to keep B.S. away from people — so they cannot consider it. Let’s face it — dare I say: People are dumb. Look who they vote for. And J.T. we have huge classes of B.S. You know the biggest class J.T.. Hearsay. That’s right J.T. That festering sore known as hearsay. Because you can’t trust what people say. They lie. They’re stupid. We want them to say it in court so that they can be subjected to the Zuppa cross and the jury can see them for what they are — dumb, B.S., liars. Juries are good at detecting the traits they possess. Now I know this hurts given the fact that your clients think newspaper clippings are evidence. But let us not destroy the law for our clients. It’s all we have J.T. I don’t see you in medicine. Digging ditches. At McDonalds like Kevin Spacey in American Beauty. And when no fault is gone where will you be J.T. I worry for you. You know cases brought in Supreme Court bypass the App Term and go to the Div that just corrected this obscure Newell case for probably the millionth time without mentioning it.
J
JT Author
I did not realize that the admissibility of a deposition could stir up such raw emotion. Yet, I found this post quite interesting for many reasons. But, I am going to answer this one question that this writer asked: “Now I know this hurts given the fact that your clients think newspaper clippings are evidence. But let us not destroy the law for our clients. It’s all we have J.T. I don’t see you in medicine. Digging ditches. At McDonalds like Kevin Spacey in American Beauty. And when no fault is gone where will you be J.T.” 1) I never ever tried to put newspaper clippings into evidence. I cannot speak for what other counsel may have done, and I will not even go there. 2) You do not want me operating on people or engaging in the treatment and diagnosis of any diseases. 3) I do not dig ditches – it never was my thing. 4) Forget McDonalds and Kevin Spacey. I am more like Shack at Taco Bell. 5) When no-fault is gone, I will be alright. I have a general practice besides no-fault. Remember, one who fails to diversify may find himself on the street one day. 6) Do not worry about me. But, I do appreciate the thought. Lastly, how did an Appellate Division case construing CPLR 3116(a) invite a discussion on the workings of the Appellate Term?
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
J.T. I said you don’t dig ditches. You are smart. I know that. You can do whatever you want in law. But what of the others J.T. What of the others. (Ssshhh … J.T. just between you and me … I have boxes of cases full of motions stuffed with newspaper clippings — Fortune Magazine’s Boris article is a biggie) As to the App Term I would have expected such a decision from the them but in a No Fault case. Here is the driving force behind this common thread. It appears that courts — and they may be justified in their feelings — have grown a bit weary of no fault. I believe at one point the defendant insurance companies bore the brunt for not paying. Now I believe its the Plaintiff providers who are bearing it for billing. Go figure. Love you J.T. Thanks for having me.
DM
David M. Gottlieb
2) As long as your practice is limited to lobotomies, I approve. 5) Such are the perils of being a one trick pony. It’s something most of us grapple with.
J
JT Author
I think before electric shock treatment and now some of the great psychotropic medications that are now out there, lobotomies represented the proper standard of care in that type of scenario. As to the second comment, I have personally seen the perils of being a one-trick pony. It does not seem wise.

Legal Resources

Understanding New York Deposition transcripts Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how deposition transcripts cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For deposition transcripts matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review