Key Takeaway
NY Appellate Term allows appeals of partial summary judgment orders on prima facie case and timely denials in no-fault insurance litigation.
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.
New York Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 23360 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
The Court opened up the door today to allow appeals of orders denying partial summary judgment as to the issue of “prima facie” and “timely denials”. The lead case on this issue seemed to suggest otherwise B.Y., M.D., P.C. v Government Empl. Ins. Co., 26 Misc.3d 95 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2010). But in B.Y., Plaintiff specifically moved for “partial summary judgment” seeking judicial findings that the bills were submitted, overdue and constituted business records.
Here, “plaintiff moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for a finding, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that plaintiff had established, for all purposes in the action, the submission to defendant of the claim forms and the fact and the amount of the loss sustained”
“plaintiff moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for a finding, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that plaintiff had established, for all purposes in the action, the submission to defendant of the claim forms and the fact and the amount of the loss sustained. Thus, in the particular circumstances of this case, including the fact that the Civil Court did make a CPLR 3212 (g) finding as to the timely mailing of the denials and did limit the issues for trial, we find that it is appropriate to make a finding, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that plaintiff established, for all purposes in the action, the submission to defendant of the claim forms and the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, and to therefore further limit the trial to the issue of medical necessity only.”
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.
The court therefore concluded that the sole issue for trial is whether the services lack medical necessity
Related Articles
- Fourth Department’s decade-spanning discussion on prima facie case requirements
- Carothers v. Geico business records showdown and prima facie cases
- Court guidance on the business records exception
- Avoiding the Omni Chiropractic mistake in prima facie case requirements
- No-Fault Insurance Defense
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
- Legal Encyclopedia: No-Fault Insurance
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision regarding CPLR 3212(g) findings and appeals of partial summary judgment orders in no-fault cases, there have been subsequent appellate decisions that may have refined or clarified the standards for when such orders are appealable. Practitioners should verify current appellate precedent regarding the appealability of orders on prima facie showings and partial summary judgment motions in no-fault insurance litigation.
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
IME No-Show Defense Defeated by an Affidavit Gap: Mailing Proof Must Cover Every Cause of Action
BR Clinton: the denial-mailing affidavit omitted one claim. Neither side won that claim; the insurer obtained judgment on the other four.
May 16, 2012
An account stated must be supported by evidence in admissible form
New York court rules that account stated claims require proper business records foundation under CPLR 4518, not just submission of credit card statements without authentication.
Oct 6, 2010
The Court offers some guidance as to the business records exception
New York Court guidance on business records exception under CPLR 4518 for Long Island and NYC practitioners handling personal injury and litigation cases.
Jan 25, 2009
Summary judgment is limited to what is pleaded upon the moving papers
Court ruling clarifies that summary judgment motions are limited to specific pleadings, requiring defendants only address claims actually raised in no-fault cases.
Feb 26, 2014Was 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.
