Skip to main content
Consolidation and belated discovery denied
Amendments

Consolidation and belated discovery denied

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Court denies consolidation and amendment motions in no-fault insurance case, ruling on discovery procedures and fraudulent incorporation claims.

This article is part of our ongoing amendments coverage, with 320 published articles analyzing amendments 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.

SEE COMMENTS FROM DAMIN TOELL, ESQ. – for further explanation of this case.

Kipor Medicine, P.C. v GEICO, 2010 NY Slip Op 51247(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)

The branch of defendant’s motion seeking consolidation should have been denied since defendant failed to demonstrate that the actions it sought to consolidate had common questions of law or fact (see CPLR 602 ; S & B Neurocare, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 132, 2008 NY Slip Op 51450 ). In addition, the branch of [*2]defendant’s motion seeking leave to amend the answer should have been denied since defendant’s papers presented no evidence that the proposed amendment might have merit (see CPLR 3025 ; Ingrami v Rovner, 45 AD3d 806, 808 ). Defendant sought to amend its answer to assert that plaintiff’s certificate of incorporation had been revoked following the surrender, in April 2006, of the medical license of plaintiff’s sole shareholder. Plaintiff, however, is entitled to wind up its affairs and seek to recover no-fault benefits for the services it rendered to its assignors prior to April 2006 (see e.g. A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Travelers Indem. Co., 26 Misc 3d 69 ). Defendant has not demonstrated that the facts herein are akin to a fraudulent incorporation (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 ).

Moreover, since defendant failed to submit an affidavit specifying that any unusual or unanticipated conditions had developed after the notice of trial had been filed which made it necessary for defendant to engage in further pretrial proceedings (see Uniform Rules for New York City Civ Ct § 208.17 ; S & B Neurocare, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 132, 2008 NY Slip Op 51450), the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to respond to discovery demands and produce its sole shareholder for an examination before trial should also have been denied.

Two points.  One, consolidation motions seem to have the same rules as severance motions.  While it is easy to sever, it is equally as difficult to consolidate.  Two, belated discovery following the filing of a notice of trial is shunned upon.

A better question is assuming the facts as presented by Justice Golia are accurate (see below), why would anybody prosecute this type of action.  Does this make the law firm prosecuting this action a co-conspirator or accessory after the fact to a fraud?  I am not sure –

“Unlike the majority, I do not find that defendant failed to demonstrate that the actions it sought to consolidate had common questions of law or fact,” or that defendant’s papers presented no evidence that the proposed amendment might have merit,” or that additional discovery should also have been denied.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, I agree with the majority in the ultimate result in that defendant waited nearly two years from the time it knew that Dr. Meisher had committed insurance fraud and was losing his medical license. Indeed, it was this very defendant, GEICO, that was the named victim” in the case to which Dr. Meisher entered his guilty plea. I can find no valid reason for this particular defendant to have ignored these concerns for such an extended period of time. Certainly, if defendant had submitted the same motion within a reasonable time, I would have voted to affirm the order of the Civil Court.”


Legal Update (February 2026): The consolidation standards under CPLR 602 and amendment procedures under CPLR 3025 discussed in this 2010 decision may have been subject to legislative amendments or evolving case law interpretations over the past 15+ years. Additionally, no-fault regulatory provisions regarding corporate dissolution and benefit recovery rights may have been updated through Insurance Department regulations or statutory changes, and practitioners should verify current consolidation requirements and pleading amendment standards.

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 Amendments 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
Procedural Issues

The failure to serve a notice of entry allows a 7 year old case to be adjudicated on appeal

Court rules that failure to serve notice of entry means the 30-day appeal deadline never starts, allowing a 7-year-old case to proceed on appeal.

Jun 5, 2012
Hypo-technical defects

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

Court rules conclusory statements insufficient to challenge faxed or electronic signatures in no-fault insurance cases without proper evidence of forgery.

Apr 11, 2010
Discovery

Discovery penalty: dismissal

NY court dismisses medical provider's no-fault case for discovery violations and refusal to answer deposition questions about doctor's business interests

Apr 30, 2019
Procedural Issues

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
View all Amendments articles

Common Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

What is discovery in New York civil litigation?

Discovery is the pre-trial phase where parties exchange relevant information and evidence. Under CPLR Article 31, discovery methods include depositions (oral questioning under oath), interrogatories (written questions), document demands, requests for admission, and physical or mental examinations. Discovery in New York is governed by the principle of full disclosure of all relevant, non-privileged information — but courts can issue protective orders to limit discovery that is overly broad or burdensome.

What happens if a party fails to comply with discovery requests?

Under CPLR 3126, a court can impose penalties for failure to comply with discovery, including preclusion of evidence, striking of pleadings, or even dismissal of the action or entry of a default judgment. Before seeking sanctions, the requesting party typically must demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute and may need to file a motion to compel disclosure under CPLR 3124.

What are interrogatories and how are they used in New York litigation?

Interrogatories are written questions served on the opposing party that must be answered under oath within a specified timeframe. Under CPLR 3130, interrogatories in New York are limited — a party may serve a maximum of 25 interrogatories, including subparts, without court permission. Interrogatories are useful for obtaining basic factual information such as witness names, insurance details, and factual contentions. Objections must be specific and timely or they may be waived.

What is a bill of particulars in New York personal injury cases?

A bill of particulars under CPLR 3043 and 3044 provides the defendant with the specific details of the plaintiff's claims — including the injuries sustained, the theory of liability, and the damages sought. In personal injury cases, it must specify each injury, the body parts affected, and the nature of the damages claimed. An amended or supplemental bill may be served to include new injuries or updated information discovered during the course of litigation.

What is an Examination Before Trial (EBT)?

An EBT, commonly called a deposition, is a pre-trial discovery tool under CPLR 3107 where a witness answers questions under oath. In personal injury and no-fault cases, EBTs are used to lock in testimony, assess witness credibility, and uncover facts relevant to the case. Both plaintiffs and defendants can be deposed, along with medical experts, claims adjusters, and other witnesses. EBT testimony can be used at trial for impeachment or as evidence if the witness is unavailable.

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 amendments 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 (6)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

DJ
“A better question is assuming the facts as presented by Justice Golia are accurate (see below), why would anybody prosecute this type of action. Does this make the law firm prosecuting this action a co-conspirator or accessory after the fact to a fraud? I am not sure -” Really, Jason? I’m the attorney who represented Kipor Medicine, P.C. in the appeal (and did the brief, the oral argument, etc.). Some points: Dr. Meisher pleaded guilty to insurance fraud for activity unrelated to Kipor Medicine, P.C. All of the services at issue in the actions contemplated by the appeal were rendered prior to the surrendering of Dr. Meisher’s license. There is no founded suggestion by GEICO or anyone else, beyond mere fantasy, that Kipor Medicine, P.C. was fraudulently incorporated, or that the services at issue were not actually rendered (the latter of which could not be an issue for litigation in these matters, anyway). There was no “fraud admittedly perpetrated by plaintiff,” despite Justice Golia’s statement in his concurrence. Following the surrendering of Dr. Meisher’s license, the Department of Health specifically ordered that Kipor Medicine, P.C. is entitled to collect on its outstanding accounts receivable. Kipor Medicine, P.C. has never faced criminal charges, nor has Dr. Meisher ever faced such charges with respect to Kipor Medicine, P.C. Similarly, OPMC never brought charges against Kipor Medicine, P.C. or against Dr. Meisher with respect to Kipor Medicine, P.C. There’s nothing there. How in the world am I possibly a co-conspirator or an accessory after the fact to fraud, when no fraud was committed? Following Hurricane Katrina, is any attorney who represents State Farm a co-conspirator or an accessory after the fact, as well (even if they bought their way out of an indictment)? In any event, publicly questioning the potential criminality of your adversaries is no way to build up good relationships going forward.
J
JT Author
Hey Damin, My comment was solely based on what Justice Golia said. It was pretty explicit. I sure as heck was not accusing anyone of anything. It was conditioned on the truth of the dissent. Seriously, assuming what Justice Golia said is true, then it begs the question why anyone would want to get involved with that entity. I am aware of the Fair Price paradigm and that “fraud” is precludable. Still, if there is dispositive evidence of fraud out there, despite whether it is precludable, then should a practitioner represent that client? In any event, I think what I said is what everyone thought based on what Justice Golia’s dissent said. According to his dissent, it was “crystal clear” and “iron clad” that the attorney appeared to be collecting upon a debt that the attorney knew or should have known was obtained through fraud. Anyway, it appears that the dissent may not have been completely accurate, so I stand corrected and feel better now. I have no ill feelings to you and hope the feeling is mutual.
DJ
It should also be noted that GEICO did not seek to amend its Answers to include the defense that Kipor Medicine, P.C. was fraudulently incorporated. GEICO sought to amend its Answers to include two (2) additional purported affirmative defenses: that Dr. Meisher surrendered his medical license (which, it was undisputed, occurred subsequent to the rendering of the services at issue), and that Kipor Medicine, P.C.’s Certificate of Incorporation was revoked (which was solely based on the corporation no longer having a licensed shareholder following Dr. Meisher’s license surrender). Neither of these are actually defenses to payment of no-fault claims. That is, even if the facts were proven as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment, for example, Defendant could never succeed in litigation on that basis alone. Moreover, given OPMC’s specific order that Kipor Medicine, P.C. is entitled to collect on its outstanding accounts receivable subsequent to the revocation of the Certificate of Incorporation, the latter proposed affirmative defense was particularly without merit. Theoretically, the proposed affirmative defenses could could be used as factual elements of some other affirmative defense (e.g., fraudulent incorporation, although the logical connection is tenuous at best), but they do not remotely suffice as affirmative defenses on their own, as the majority correctly acknowledged. Justice Golia’s position that Defendant’s motion could have “establish[ed] the need for defendant to amend the answer” ignores the fact that no possible motion could transform non-defenses into valid affirmative defense for which amendment could ever be available. GEICO might as well have sought to add as an affirmative defense that Dr. Meisher has a beard. (By the way, I should correct my prior comment – OPMC did bring a single charge against Kipor Medicine, P.C.: that, following Dr. Meisher’s surrendering his license, the corporation no longer had a licensed shareholder. No charges were ever brought against Kipor Medicine, P.C. relative to an activity during the time it existed as an active corporation prior to the surrendering of Dr. Meisher’s license.)
RZ
raymond zuppa
Well J.T. it just goes to show you that you cannot believe everything you read. You have to look at the source and do a little due dilligence. This reminds me of something similar. Russ Feingold and myself did not believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when Fox News told us. Everyone else bought it because of the quality of the source.
J
JT Author
“There are two sides to every story and the truth lies somewhere in between.” Different conclusions tend to flow from either side of the story. To address your comment, I also never believed Iraq had WMD.
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
There are no real stories just physical facts. We need to understand that we live in a world of physics and chemistry. Not a world of interpretation and story. Words cannot stop a Zuppa right hook. But did you buy the Osama/Hussein connection. Probably. The one intelligent person in this Country — Me — understood that in order to keep the various religous sects and faiths in his country together Hussein had to be secular in approach although religious in appearance. Hussein hated Osama. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. It was all Saudi. Bush’s friends. That’s why Bush redacted all material having to do with the Saudis from the 9-11 Report. An Israeli Intelligence Officer commented to an American General after the fall of Baghdad — “Now what.”

Legal Resources

Understanding New York Amendments Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how amendments 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 amendments 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