Key Takeaway
Court rejects challenge to peer review report based solely on claim of stamped signature, emphasizing need for expert proof in no-fault insurance disputes.
This article is part of our ongoing evidence coverage, with 126 published articles analyzing evidence 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.
In no-fault insurance litigation, peer review reports serve as critical evidence for insurance companies defending against medical claims. These reports, prepared by medical professionals to evaluate the necessity and reasonableness of treatment, often face challenges from plaintiffs who question their authenticity or admissibility. A recent Appellate Term decision demonstrates how courts handle such challenges when they lack proper evidentiary support.
The case of Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. illustrates a fundamental principle in evidence law: mere allegations without substantiation carry little weight in court proceedings. When challenging the admissibility of crucial documents like peer review reports, parties must provide concrete evidence to support their claims.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 51759(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“Plaintiff’s only argument, both before the Civil Court and on appeal, is that the peer review report relied upon by defendant contained a stamped signature and, as a result, it was inadmissible. We find that plaintiff’s assertion, without any indication as to why plaintiff believed that the signature was a stamped signature, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 127, 2011 NY Slip Op 51230 ).”
If Plaintiff was serious about this argument, they would have presented an affidavit from an appropriate expert explaining how they came to the conclusion that the signature was stamped. As is always the case, this was not done here.
Legal Significance
The Alev Medical Supply decision establishes a crucial evidentiary standard for challenging document authenticity in no-fault litigation. The court’s holding reflects the broader principle that parties cannot defeat summary judgment motions through unsupported allegations. Under New York law, a party opposing summary judgment must produce admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact—not merely speculative claims or conclusory assertions.
The decision implicitly recognizes several important procedural realities. First, forensic document examination is a specialized field requiring expert qualifications. Courts will not accept lay opinion testimony on technical matters like signature authentication, which involves analyzing pressure patterns, ink characteristics, stroke consistency, and other factors beyond ordinary observation. Second, the ruling reinforces that the burden of proof rests on the party challenging admissibility—here, the plaintiff seeking payment must affirmatively demonstrate why the peer review report should be excluded, rather than forcing the defendant to prove authenticity.
This case also highlights strategic considerations in peer review challenges. Rather than making bare allegations about stamped signatures, providers should consider obtaining affidavits from qualified forensic document examiners who can testify about specific characteristics indicating mechanical reproduction versus handwritten signatures.
Practical Implications
For healthcare providers contesting peer review reports, this decision demonstrates the inadequacy of superficial challenges. If a provider suspects a peer review signature is stamped or otherwise inauthentic, they must retain a qualified forensic document examiner to analyze the original document and provide expert testimony. This requires obtaining the actual peer review report (not a photocopy), examining it under appropriate conditions, and having the expert prepare a detailed affidavit explaining the methodology and conclusions.
Insurance companies benefit from understanding that their peer review reports will withstand challenge unless plaintiffs present substantial expert evidence. However, this should not create complacency—insurers should ensure their peer reviewers properly sign reports with original signatures to avoid creating unnecessary vulnerabilities.
The decision also serves as a reminder about discovery strategy. Providers challenging peer review authenticity should serve targeted discovery requests seeking the original peer review report, information about the reviewer’s signing practices, and any policies regarding document execution to build a foundation for expert analysis.
Key Takeaway
Courts require more than speculation when challenging the authenticity of peer review reports in no-fault cases. As this decision shows, plaintiffs must present expert testimony or other concrete evidence explaining the basis for their claims about document authenticity. Similar evidentiary standards apply to other business records and peer review reports used in insurance litigation.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations under Insurance Law Section 5102 have undergone multiple amendments, particularly regarding peer review procedures, electronic signature standards, and medical documentation requirements. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding signature authentication standards and peer review report admissibility under the most recent regulatory framework.
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
Evidentiary Issues in New York Litigation
The rules of evidence determine what information a court or arbitrator may consider in deciding a case. In New York no-fault and personal injury practice, evidentiary issues arise constantly — from the admissibility of business records and medical reports to the foundation requirements for expert testimony and the application of hearsay exceptions. These articles examine how New York courts apply evidentiary rules in insurance and injury litigation, with practical guidance for building admissible evidence at every stage of a case.
126 published articles in Evidence
Keep Reading
More Evidence Analysis
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
NY CPLR 2106 amendment eliminates notarized affidavits and certificates of conformity. Learn how this changes litigation practice. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 18, 2026
When the trial court in a bench trial does not assess credibility
Learn when NY appellate courts can review bench trial credibility findings. Expert legal analysis of appellate standards. Call 516-750-0595 for consultation.
Nov 3, 2019
CPLR 4518(a) Business Records: Key Admissibility Rules for New York Litigation
Key CPLR 4518(a) business records admissibility rules after Rodriguez decision. Expert analysis for Long Island & NYC attorneys handling evidence issues.
Feb 21, 2011
An expert's opinion that relies on an unsworn MRI report constitutes competent evidence
Learn when New York courts allow expert medical testimony based on unsworn MRI reports. Expert analysis of Caulkins v Vicinanzo and Pommells v Perez cases. Call (516) 750-0595.
Mar 4, 2010
Some newer cases
Recent 2008 New York no-fault insurance procedural decisions on stipulations, discovery sanctions, and precluded defenses affecting Nassau, Suffolk, Queens litigation.
Nov 16, 2008
Another peer hearsay case
New York court upholds admission of doctor's peer review testimony on medical necessity despite hearsay objections in no-fault insurance case.
Feb 11, 2014Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What types of evidence are important in no-fault and personal injury cases?
Key types of evidence include medical records and bills, police accident reports, diagnostic imaging (MRI, X-ray, CT scans), expert medical opinions, business records from insurance companies and providers, witness statements, photographs of injuries and the accident scene, and employment records for lost wage claims. The rules of evidence under New York CPLR and the Evidence Rules govern what is admissible in court proceedings.
What is the business records exception to hearsay in New York?
Under CPLR 4518(a), a business record is admissible if it was made in the regular course of business, it was the regular course of business to make such a record, and the record was made at or near the time of the event recorded. This exception is crucial in no-fault litigation because insurers' denial letters, claim logs, and peer review reports are often offered as business records. The foundation for the business record must be established through testimony or a certification.
What role does diagnostic imaging play as evidence in injury cases?
Diagnostic imaging — MRIs, CT scans, X-rays, and EMG/NCV studies — provides objective evidence of injuries such as herniated discs, fractures, ligament tears, and nerve damage. Courts and arbitrators give significant weight to imaging evidence because it is less subjective than physical examination findings. In serious injury threshold cases under §5102(d), imaging evidence corroborating clinical findings strengthens the plaintiff's case considerably.
How do New York courts handle surveillance evidence in personal injury cases?
Insurance companies frequently hire investigators to conduct video surveillance of plaintiffs to challenge injury claims. Under CPLR 3101(i), a party must disclose surveillance materials prior to trial, including films, photographs, and videotapes. Surveillance evidence can be powerful for impeachment if it contradicts the plaintiff's testimony about limitations. However, courts may preclude surveillance that was not properly disclosed or that is misleadingly edited.
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 evidence 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.
