Key Takeaway
Central Nassau Diagnostic Imaging v GEICO case shows how providers can use admissions from notices to admit to establish prima facie cases for no-fault benefits.
This article is part of our ongoing prima facie case coverage, with 73 published articles analyzing prima facie case 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.
Central Nassau Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v GEICO, 2010 NY Slip Op 20244 (App.Term 1st Dept. 2010)
I am going to annotate this opinion –
Here is the synopsis of the argument:
“On appeal, defendant argues that plaintiff could not rely upon defendant’s admissions resulting from its failure to respond to the notice to admit to establish plaintiff’s prima facie case. Defendant maintains that, notwithstanding the factual admissions resulting from its failure to respond to the notice to admit, plaintiff was required to call witnesses at trial to lay a foundation for the admission into evidence of the bills. Because plaintiff did not call any trial witnesses, defendant asserts that the complaint should have been dismissed, as plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to recover the assigned no-fault benefits. We disagree, and affirm.”
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.
Here is the holding:
“laintiff’s requests for admissions were appropriate and defendant, by failing to respond to the notice to admit or seek other appropriate relief, is deemed to have admitted the facts on which plaintiff sought admissions. Because defendant admitted that the two bills attached to the notice were “true and accurate” copies of the bills received by defendant and that defendant has not paid those bills, plaintiff established its entitlement to recover the overdue assigned first-party no-fault benefits (see Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 742 ).”
The final nail in the coffin from this court:
“Our conclusion that a plaintiff-provider can use admissions obtained through a notice to admit to establish its entitlement to recover overdue assigned first-party no-fault benefits is consonant with the purposes underlying the No-Fault Law, which “were to ensure prompt compensation for losses incurred by accident victims without regard to fault or negligence, to reduce the burden on the courts and to provide substantial premium savings to New York motorists” (Medical Socy. of State v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 860 ), as well as case law allowing a plaintiff-provider to establish its entitlement to such benefits based on admissions obtained from a defendant-insurer on interrogatories (see Fair Price Med. Supply, Inc. v St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 8 ).”
The Appellate Term, Second Department gets slighted:
“To the extent Bajaj v Gen. Assur. (18 Misc 3d 25 ) can be read to support a contrary result, we decline to follow it.”
My thoughts:
Why would a plaintiff stipulate to anything if an unanswered notice to admit or Interrogatory #18 of a famous law firm’s discovery package is completely answered?
Admittedly, I suppose this decision makes sense and is correct on the law as Appellate Division authority exists right now. As a practitioner, it just seems crazy that a provider can mail a piece of paper – it probably can even be a boulder that Fred Flintstone chizzled into – wave a wand and make its case through the statutorily mandated duties of an insurance carrier. Blame the Appellate Division for this result.
But, I have to laugh at how allowing a medical provider to meet its prima facie case without calling a witness or relying on an insurance carrier’s admissions: “educe the burden on the courts and to provide substantial premium savings to New York motorists”. It looks like the author of this per curiam opinion decided to hurl some of the left over salt from the stockpiles that New York City has at the conclusion of the winter season at Geico’s counsel’s open wounds.
ONE MORE THING
I was informed last night that I was actually referencing “interrogatory #8”, see supra. I said “18”. And yes, I have received many motions over the years explaining how my response to this famous interrogatory was deficient.
Related Articles
- The Fourth Department for the first time in a decade has discussed what constitutes a prima facie case
- Carothers v. Geico: The No-Fault Business Records Showdown
- Understanding Prima Facie Cases in New York No-Fault Insurance Law
- Prima Facie Case Requirements in NY No-Fault Insurance: Avoiding the Omni Chiropractic Mistake
- 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.
About This Topic
Prima Facie Case Requirements in New York
Establishing a prima facie case is the threshold burden that every plaintiff or moving party must meet. In no-fault practice, the standards for a prima facie case on summary judgment have been refined through extensive appellate litigation — covering the sufficiency of claim forms, proof of mailing, medical evidence, and the procedural prerequisites for establishing entitlement to benefits. These articles analyze what constitutes a prima facie showing across different claim types and the evidence required to meet or defeat that burden.
73 published articles in Prima Facie case
Keep Reading
More Prima Facie case Analysis
CPLR 3212(g) struck
New York appeals court clarifies burden of proof standards in no-fault insurance cases, addressing when plaintiffs must prove compliance with verification requests at trial.
Mar 29, 2018
Prima facie case for trial purposes
Analysis of two NY appellate cases establishing prima facie requirements for no-fault insurance trials, including burden of proof for claim submission and payment denial.
Jan 8, 2018
A passenger may move for partial summary judgment re: liability
Passenger wins partial summary judgment on liability in NY appellate case, demonstrating effective legal strategy for innocent passengers in multi-vehicle accidents.
Feb 27, 2012
A tongue twister from the Fourth Department
Fourth Department appellate court ruling on res judicata, law of the case doctrine, and prima facie requirements in no-fault insurance mailing disputes.
May 4, 2010
The errant notice to admit
Court rules improper notice to admit cannot establish prima facie case for no-fault insurance EUO nonappearance, highlighting discovery limits in litigation.
Oct 6, 2015
Amended motion/Admissible Reply papers/Defects in affidavits/delay letter vs. verification requests
Colonia Medical: correcting an IME affidavit did not cure inconsistent proof, and an investigation delay letter did not toll the no-fault claim clock.
Aug 6, 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 prima facie case 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.
