Key Takeaway
Court of Appeals decision on no-fault insurance claims showing plaintiff's burden of proof and proper use of denial forms as evidence in New York cases.
When will certain Plaintiffs and their law firms realize that it is okay to occasionally lose in Civil Court. Look at the the mess that Plaintiff has now created for itself. By the way, look at the bolded section of this opinion. Why did you do this to yourself Mr. Five Boro?
Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51528(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
“Plaintiff argues on appeal that, because defendant failed to attach a copy of the bill at issue in this case to its motion papers, the Civil Court could not have been able to identify the bill at issue and, thus, defendant’s motion should have been denied. This contention is without merit. The complaint in this matter identified the sole bill at issue (see CPLR 3013), and defendant attached the complaint to its motion papers as required by CPLR 3212 (b). Accordingly, there could not have been any question as to the identity of the bill which is the subject of this action.”
“efendant was not relying on for th purpose. It is plaintiff’s burden, not defendant’s, to prove the elements of plaintiff’s cause of action. Defendant submitted the denial of claim form to show that it was sent and that the claim was therefore denied (see Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 141, 2010 NY Slip Op 50991 ; Quality Health Prods., Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire [*2]Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 141, 2010 NY Slip Op 50990 ). Since defendant did not submit the denial of claim form for a hearsay purpose, defendant was not required to lay a CPLR 4518 foundation for its admissibility”
Related Articles
- Civil Court decisions in no-fault insurance cases and flawed legal reasoning
- Court guidance on the business records exception
- Written opposition as key to beating procedural defects
- Uncertified police report inadmissibility issues
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 decision, there have been ongoing developments in no-fault insurance regulations, including potential amendments to claims processing requirements, billing procedures, and verification of medical service documentation under Insurance Department regulations. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding burden of proof standards in no-fault actions and any updated requirements for motion practice documentation under CPLR 3212.
