Key Takeaway
Court clarifies that prima facie showing in summary judgment only shifts burden, doesn't establish facts for trial in no-fault insurance cases.
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.
A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 21243 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
I am not going to lose sleep over AB Medical not prevailing on this appeal – remember when AB used to always win? I was in diapers then.
Here is the holding:
“An order deciding a motion for summary judgment determines only whether the affidavits and proofs submitted to the court in support of, or in opposition to, the motion entitle a party to a pretrial judgment (see CPLR 3212 ; Cushman & Wakefield v 214 E. 49th St. Corp., 218 AD2d 464, 468 ). A court’s finding that a movant has made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment represents nothing other than that the movant has shifted the burden to the opposing party to raise a triable issue of fact, just as a court’s “denial of a motion [*2]for summary judgment establishes nothing except that summary judgment is not warranted at this time” (Siegel, NY Prac § 287, at 487 ).
In our prior order, we found only that plaintiff had submitted proof, in admissible form, of each fact required to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The order did not include a finding, either explicit or implicit, that such facts were incontrovertible, and thus that they could be deemed established for all purposes in the action pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g). Indeed, the very shifting of the burden of proof upon a finding that a plaintiff has demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment presupposes that the defendant, in opposition, might be able to rebut any aspect of the plaintiff’s case. It follows, then, that there is nothing in this court’s order suggesting that defendant could not, at trial, dispute any aspect of plaintiffs’ case. As a result, the Civil Court improperly relied upon this court’s prior order in limiting the issues for trial pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g).”
This makes sense to some extent. In a 5102(d) action, let us say that Plaintiff moves for SJ on the basis that he proved a fracture, prima facie, but the defendant raised an issue of fact that there really was no fracture. Would it make sense for a court to grant Plaintiff 3212(g) relief, requiring Defendant to prove a lack of fracture at trial? (we are assuming that liability is not an issue)
Reverse it. What would happen if Defendant on SJ prima facie proved that the Plaintiff did not have a fracture, and Plaintiff raised an issue of fact that there was a fracture? Does this mean Defendant does not have to offer any proof at trial?
Third situation: Both parties move and cross move for summary judgment and the court holds that: (1) Plaintiff made out its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through proof that there was a fracture, but Defendant raised a triable issue of fact showing there was not fracture; and (2) Defendant in support of his motion prima facie demonstrated there was no fracture, but Plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact that there was a fracture.
You see how tricky this gets.
Related Articles
- 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
- Fourth Department discusses what constitutes a prima facie case for the first time in a decade
- Carothers v. Geico: The No-Fault Business Records Showdown
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post, CPLR 3212 governing summary judgment motions has undergone amendments, particularly regarding burden-shifting requirements and evidentiary standards. Additionally, New York Insurance Law section 5102 definitions and prima facie case standards for no-fault claims may have been modified through regulatory updates or judicial interpretations. Practitioners should verify current CPLR provisions and no-fault statutory requirements when analyzing summary judgment standards in insurance disputes.
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, 2018Prima 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, 2018Understanding Prima Facie Cases in New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Learn about prima facie case requirements in New York no-fault insurance litigation. Expert guidance for medical providers on establishing strong claims. Call 516-750-0595.
Jun 11, 2009A prima facie case – not too much needed
Court affirms that third-party biller testimony alone can establish prima facie case in no-fault insurance disputes, following Viviane Etienne precedent.
Apr 2, 2014Another less than noteworthy prima facie decision
Analysis of New York Diagnostic Med. Care v GEICO decision on prima facie requirements in no-fault insurance claims and medical necessity standards.
Apr 1, 2013A new twist on prima facie
New York appellate court case shows how inadequate documentation can doom a no-fault insurance claim, highlighting the evolving standards for prima facie cases.
Mar 10, 2011Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What does 'prima facie case' mean in no-fault litigation?
In no-fault litigation, the provider or claimant bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case by submitting proof of the claim — including evidence that the services were provided, the claim was timely submitted, and the amount billed is correct. Once the prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the insurer to demonstrate a valid defense, such as medical necessity denial, lack of coverage, or failure to appear for an EUO or IME.
Was this article helpful?
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.
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.