Why Trust This Analysis
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.
When Preclusion Orders Doom Insurance Defenses
No-fault insurance disputes often turn on whether an insurance company’s denial of benefits was legally sufficient. While insurers typically have broad discretion to challenge claims based on medical necessity or other grounds, procedural failures can completely undermine their defense. This case demonstrates how a preclusion order can render an insurance company’s defense “deficient as a matter of law,” making it impossible for them to contest a no-fault provider’s claim.
The decision illustrates a critical intersection between procedural compliance and substantive legal defenses in no-fault litigation. When courts issue preclusion orders preventing insurers from presenting evidence supporting their denials, those denials become legally meaningless. This creates a powerful precedent for establishing prima facie cases against insurance companies that fail to follow proper procedural requirements.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Lof Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50595(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
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.
This is a rare application of “Avenue T” where the court held the defense was insufficient as a matter of law and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff.
(1) STATEMENT OF LAW
“A no-fault provider establishes its prima facie case “by proof of the submission to the defendant of a claim form, proof of the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and proof either that the defendant had failed to pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period, or that the defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law”
(2 ) APPLICATION
“laintiff demonstrated that defendant’s proffected defense of lack of medical necessity was without merit as a matter of law, in that the Civil Court had issued a prior order precluding defendant from offering any evidence in support of its claimed defense. In opposition to the motion, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact”
Key Takeaway
This decision shows how procedural violations can completely destroy an insurance company’s substantive defenses. When a court issues a preclusion order preventing an insurer from presenting evidence to support its denial, that denial becomes legally insufficient, allowing the no-fault provider to establish its prima facie case and obtain summary judgment.
Related Articles
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, 2018
Prima 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, 2018
Another prima facie case – refining Etienne
Court case refines prima facie requirements for no-fault insurance claims, clarifying medical providers don't need business records exception proof in NY.
Feb 5, 2014
Final order of preclusion became automatic – no need to move for one
Court rules conditional preclusion order becomes automatic upon non-compliance, but plaintiff still must prove prima facie case for summary judgment
May 5, 2012
Notice to Admit is successful in District Court
District Court allows Notice to Admit to satisfy prima facie burden in no-fault case, despite Second Department precedent requiring business records foundation.
Jul 20, 2010
Prima facie: schizophrenia from the Appellate Term
Analysis of prima facie evidence requirements in New York no-fault insurance litigation, examining appellate court inconsistencies in the Mary Immaculate Hospital case.
Oct 16, 2008Was 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 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.
