Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 264 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.
Timing Is Everything in No-Fault Discovery Disputes
Successful litigation in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases often hinges on timing and strategic discovery requests. When insurance companies move for summary judgment too quickly, before allowing adequate discovery, courts may deny their motions if the medical provider can demonstrate they’ve been deprived of essential documentation.
The Metropolitan Diagnostic case illustrates a critical principle: medical providers who promptly seek discovery of peer review materials and medical documentation can successfully defend against premature summary judgment motions. This contrasts sharply with cases where providers wait months after joinder of issue before requesting discovery, often resulting in unfavorable outcomes.
Understanding when and how to request peer review reports is crucial for protecting medical providers’ rights in no-fault litigation. The timing of these requests can make the difference between a successful defense and summary judgment against the provider.
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.
Metropolitan Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v A. Cent. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 52246(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“In opposition to defendant’s motion, and in support of its cross motion to compel discovery, plaintiff demonstrated that it had requested from defendant, but had not received, the peer review report, the complete set of medical documentation relating to the assignor received by defendant and the complete set of medical documentation provided to defendant’s peer reviewer (see Alrof, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 29 ). Under the circumstances of this case, summary judgment was premature (see CPLR 3212 ), and the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking to compel discovery should have been granted.”
It appears that A. Central moved for summary judgment relatively quickly following receipt of an answer. Furthermore, Metropolitan Diagnostic cross-moved for disclosure based relief in that motion sequence. That is why “Under the circumstances”, Plaintiff was able to stave off summary judgment. This should be contrasted to the line of cases where Plaintiff does not seek disclosure for 8-10 months following joinder of issue and Defendant then moves for summary judgment. In that scenario, Plaintiff loses its motion and summary judgment is granted.
Key Takeaway
Medical providers must act swiftly when requesting discovery materials from insurance companies. Those who promptly seek peer review reports and medical documentation after joinder of issue can successfully oppose premature summary judgment motions, while providers who delay these requests for months typically face unfavorable outcomes.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s discovery rules under CPLR Article 31 have undergone amendments, and Insurance Department regulations governing no-fault discovery procedures may have been updated. Additionally, appellate decisions regarding timing requirements for peer review discovery requests and summary judgment standards in no-fault cases may have evolved. Practitioners should verify current CPLR provisions and recent case law developments when advising on discovery timing strategies.
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
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.
264 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
A sighting of “interboard” in action
Court ruling shows "interboard" IME cutoff requirements in action - acupuncture provider loses no-fault case for lack of medical evidence opposing summary judgment motion.
Jun 30, 2016
Some substance to an IME cut off defense
Premier Health Choice: the supported IME cutoff, the provider's two opposition defects, and why an examination is different from an IME no-show.
Nov 3, 2013
Appellate Term, First Departments latest statement on peer reviews
Devonshire's 2011 peer-review ruling granted providers summary judgment. Separate its record-specific result from Jason's historical departmental comparison.
Apr 8, 2011
NY No-Fault: When Treating Doctors Must Challenge IME Medical Necessity Findings
Learn when treating doctors must meaningfully disagree with IME findings in NY no-fault cases.
Nov 17, 2009Was 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.
