Key Takeaway
Manhattan Medical rejected an unexplained stamped-signature objection. Separate the medical-necessity claims, the IME claim and current affirmation 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
An assertion that a doctor’s signature was stamped did not raise a factual dispute in Manhattan Medical Imaging. The missing piece was a reason for that belief—not proof of a completed forgery.
Historical note: This 2011 decision rejected an unexplained signature objection; current CPLR 2106 has broader signer eligibility and specified exceptions, summarized in the affirmation update.
The two medical-necessity claims
Manhattan Med. Imaging v New York Central Mutual, 2011 NY Slip Op 51230(U), was decided June 30, 2011. The insurer supported its first and third claim defenses with timely-denial evidence and affirmed peer reviews containing a factual basis and medical rationale.
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 supplied no doctor’s affirmation answering those conclusions. Its assertion that one report bore a stamped signature also failed: it gave no indication why it believed that. The court reversed denial of the insurer’s motion and dismissed those claims.
That is not a finding that stamped signatures are always valid. The opinion followed Ortho-Med’s distinction between a supported execution dispute and a bare assertion. Nor did it require the objector to prove forgery before raising an issue.
The separate IME claim
The second cause of action rested on different evidence. Affidavits established mailing of examination notices and the assignor’s nonappearance. The appellate court also granted dismissal of that claim. The signature discussion should not obscure that separate basis for relief.
Apply today’s execution rules
Current CPLR 2106 permits properly subscribed perjury affirmations for covered statements by any person. State Technology Law 304(2) recognizes electronic signatures subject to legal exceptions.
Review the particular document, how the signature was adopted and the stated basis for any objection. The method of signing, the report’s admissibility and its medical reasoning are distinct questions; none is answered merely by labeling the signature electronic.
No separate personal account was identified in this post; the original material was a court excerpt.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the CPLR 2001 mistakes and irregularities hub.
- Ortho-Med: why the reply issue was not reached
- Park Slope: a properly raised signature dispute
- 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
Collateral estoppel again
Clark v Farmers case explores collateral estoppel doctrine preventing relitigation of serious injury claims in NY no-fault and SUM insurance actions.
May 15, 2014
Motion to renew and then some
New York appellate court case analyzing motion to renew procedures and trial calendar restoration after clerical errors in personal injury litigation.
Apr 25, 2012
Appellate Term Approves of the Court Giving Defendant a Second Bite at the Apple
New York Appellate Term allows defendant a second chance to cure defective summary judgment papers with supplemental physician affidavit in no-fault insurance case.
Apr 21, 2010
CPLR § 308 Service of Process: The New York Practitioner's Guide
CPLR 308: five ways to serve an individual in New York — personal delivery, suitable-age person, nail-and-mail, court-ordered — plus due-diligence rules.
Apr 3, 2020Was 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.
