Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 103 published articles analyzing discovery 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.
Understanding Discovery Burdens in No-Fault Insurance Cases
In no-fault insurance litigation, discovery disputes frequently arise when insurance companies seek information from medical providers to investigate potential billing fraud. A critical question emerges: who bears the burden of proving whether discovery demands are appropriate? The Appellate Term’s decision in All Boro Psychological Services provides important clarification on this procedural issue.
Under New York’s no-fault insurance regulations, insurers must raise defenses like billing fraud in timely NF-10 denial forms. However, when discovery disputes arise, the burden of proof becomes more nuanced. Medical providers cannot simply assume that an insurer’s discovery demands are improper - they must affirmatively demonstrate why those demands should be rejected.
This ruling has significant implications for no-fault discovery motions and the strategic considerations medical providers must weigh when opposing insurance company investigations. The decision reinforces that procedural defenses require active proof, not passive assumptions.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
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.
All Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 23043 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“Thus, in the case at bar, defendant was not required to demonstrate that its discovery demands were not palpably improper. Rather, in order to successfully oppose defendant’s cross motion to compel, plaintiff would have had to show that defendant’s defense of billing fraud was precluded because it was not asserted in a timely NF-10 denial of claim form, which plaintiff did not do.”
This is rough.
Key Takeaway
Medical providers facing discovery demands in no-fault cases cannot rely on passive opposition. They must actively prove that the insurance company’s defense is procedurally barred - such as by demonstrating the insurer failed to raise billing fraud defenses in timely NF-10 forms. The burden rests squarely on the provider to establish that discovery demands are “palpably improper,” not on the insurer to justify their appropriateness.
Related Articles
- NY EBT Venue Rules: When Courts Grant Undue Hardship Exceptions for Depositions
- Court holds CPLR 3212(f) relief inappropriate under three separate discovery circumstances
- EBT procedural requirements in no-fault cases following Fogel decision
- Assignor’s failure to appear for EBT not grounds for sanctions against assignee
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
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
Discovery Practice in New York Courts
Discovery is the pre-trial process through which parties exchange information relevant to the dispute. In New York, discovery practice is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions, interrogatories, document demands, and physical examinations. Disputes over the scope of discovery, compliance with demands, and sanctions for noncompliance are frequent in both no-fault and personal injury cases. These articles analyze discovery rules, court decisions on discovery disputes, and strategies for effective discovery practice.
103 published articles in Discovery
Keep Reading
More Discovery Analysis
Litigation Funding Disclosure in New York: What Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Means for Both Bars — and for Injured Clients
A NY appellate court allowed defendants to discover third-party litigation funding in a personal injury suit. What Lituma means for both bars and claimants.
Jun 14, 2026
Another Discovery
Appellate Term ruling on discovery objections shows courts won't disturb trial court discretion when defendants fail to timely object within CPLR's 20-day period.
May 22, 2021
CPLR 3101(d) Expert Disclosure: How Much Detail Is Enough? (Conway v Elite Towing)
Conway v Elite Towing: CPLR 3101(d) expert disclosure need only state the substance of the expert's facts and opinions, not every specific fact, in NY cases.
Feb 3, 2016
Conditional discovery order vacated upon showing of law office failure
New York courts may vacate discovery sanctions when defendants show reasonable law office failure excuse and meritorious defenses, as demonstrated in Elite Medical case.
Oct 27, 2013
Amendment of bill of particulars on the eve of trial is allowed
New York Appellate Term rules that amending a bill of particulars on the eve of trial requires judicial discretion exercised in a "discreet, circumspect, prudent and cautious...
Jul 19, 2010
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, 2019Was 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 discovery 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.
