Key Takeaway
Five Boro Psychological Services loses another appeal due to insufficient evidence in their motion for summary judgment, highlighting the importance of proper documentation in no-fault cases.
This article is part of our ongoing mr. five boro award coverage, with 7 published articles analyzing mr. five boro award 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.
The Appellate Term continues to scrutinize healthcare providers who fail to meet basic evidentiary requirements in no-fault insurance cases. Five Boro Psychological Services has once again found themselves on the losing end of an appeal, earning them another dubious honor in what has become a pattern of unsuccessful litigation attempts.
This case demonstrates a fundamental issue plaguing many no-fault providers: the failure to submit adequate supporting documentation when seeking summary judgment. The court’s decision reinforces established precedent regarding CPLR 4518 and the stringent requirements for business record affidavits in medical billing disputes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 2012 NY Slip Op 50677(U)(App. Term 2d. Dept. 2012)
The Mr. Five Boro award now goes to……Mr. Five Boro.
“The affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s billing and collection supervisor in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was insufficient to establish plaintiff’s prima facie case (see CPLR 4518 ; Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 ; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128, 2011 NY Slip Op 51292 ). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.”
Do you think if Mr. Five Boro had to pay $2,300 (the average cost of a record on appeal if given to a printer to do) instead of proceeding in the original record, he would have perfected such a meritorious appeal?
Key Takeaway
Healthcare providers must ensure their billing supervisors submit comprehensive affidavits that comply with CPLR 4518 requirements. This case serves as another reminder that inadequate documentation continues to undermine otherwise valid claims, and providers should carefully review their evidence before pursuing costly appeals that lack merit from the outset.
Related Articles
- When Progressive’s procedural failures demonstrate common insurance defense mistakes
- Mr. Five Boro’s continued pattern of inadequate documentation
- How acupuncture providers face similar evidentiary challenges
- Understanding res judicata principles in no-fault litigation
- Default judgment consequences for inadequate submissions
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone several amendments, including updates to fee schedules, documentation requirements, and procedural standards for healthcare provider claims. Additionally, appellate courts have issued numerous decisions that may have refined or expanded upon the CPLR 4518 business records requirements discussed here. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments when handling similar no-fault billing 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.
Keep Reading
More Mr. Five Boro Award Analysis
Default judgment upheld
Appeals court upholds default judgment against defendants who failed to comply with discovery order in State Farm no-fault insurance case, requiring reasonable excuse and...
Aug 10, 2015Mr. Five Boro – the distant cousin of Mr. All Boro – has reappeared
Court ruling in Five Boro Psychological v GEICO clarifies that insurers don't need to provide medical records when defending medical necessity denials in no-fault cases.
Jun 8, 2012Acupuncture fee schedule defense upheld
New York court upholds insurance company's denial of acupuncture claims exceeding workers' compensation fee schedule limits in Raz Acupuncture v New S. Ins. Co.
May 16, 2012Understanding Res Judicata in No-Fault Insurance: When Past Decisions Bar Future Claims
Learn how res judicata doctrine affects no-fault insurance litigation in NY. Expert analysis of declaratory judgments and legal barriers for medical providers.
Feb 17, 2012When Insurance Defense Goes Wrong: Progressive’s Procedural Failures in Peer Review
Progressive's peer review defense fails due to improper affidavit procedures in NY no-fault case, showing how procedural errors can defeat strong defenses.
Feb 3, 2012Staged accident and non-payments of premiums
Insurance fraud case reveals challenges with internet policy binding and payment requirements, highlighting need for stronger due diligence in no-fault claims.
Jun 8, 2012Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the significance of notable legal decisions highlighted by attorneys?
Experienced attorneys frequently analyze notable court decisions to identify legal principles, procedural strategies, and emerging trends. These analyses help other practitioners and clients understand how courts apply the law in real-world disputes.
How do court decisions in one case affect future litigation?
Under the doctrines of stare decisis and precedent, court decisions — particularly from appellate courts — guide how similar cases will be decided. In New York no-fault and personal injury law, key decisions shape how insurers, providers, and claimants approach their disputes.
Why is case analysis important for understanding New York law?
New York's legal landscape is shaped by thousands of court decisions interpreting statutes and regulations. Detailed case analysis reveals how judges apply the law to specific facts, what evidence they find persuasive, and what procedural steps are critical for success.
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 mr. five boro award 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.