Key Takeaway
Court ruling on no-fault insurance denial defects: minor errors in claim amounts don't invalidate NF-10 denials, peer review reports not required at time of denial.
This article is part of our ongoing 2106 and 2309 coverage, with 194 published articles analyzing 2106 and 2309 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.
Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 01166 (2d Dept. 2014)
“However, in opposition, the defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether it timely and properly denied the subject claim (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). The defendant submitted evidence showing that it mailed to the plaintiff a denial of claim form NF-10 within the requisite 30-day period (see Insurance Law § 5106; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8). Although the denial of claim form incorrectly stated the amount of the claim and the amount in dispute, under the circumstances of this case, these minor errors did not render the denial fatally defective and a nullity”
…
“Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the fact that the defendant attached to its denial of claim form an unaffirmed and unsworn peer review report, which contained a stamped facsimile of the physician’s signature and did not comply with CPLR 2106, did not render the denial of claim ineffective, since the defendant was not obligated to submit the peer review report in the first instance (see CPLR 2106; cf. Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Travelers Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 778). The relevant no-fault regulations do not require that a denial of claim form be supported by a peer review report or other medical evidence at the time that the denial of claim form is issued (cf. 11 NYCRR 65-3.8). Indeed, this Court has previously held that a defendant is not required to set forth a medical rationale in its denial of claim form”
(1) The denial with the incorrect information is sufficient to avoid preclusion. It appears that this case rehashes 65-3.8(h): “With respect to a denial of claim (NYS Form N-F 10), an insurer’s non-substantive technical or immaterial defect or omission shall not affect the validity of a denial of claim. This subdivision shall apply to medical services rendered, and to lost earnings and other reasonable and necessary expenses incurred, on or after April 1, 2013.”
(2) AB v. Liberty is re-affirmed. There is no news on this front. I am curious why this argument was made and why Supreme Court accepted it.
Related Articles
- Understanding stamped signature requirements and form defects in peer review reports
- Navigating CPLR 2106 procedural requirements in medical practice litigation
- CPLR 2309 compliance and notarization requirements in New York litigation
- Submitting new evidence in reply papers under CPLR 2309
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 decision, the no-fault denial requirements under 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 and verification standards under CPLR 2106 may have been subject to regulatory amendments or updated interpretive guidance. The standards for what constitutes “minor errors” versus fatal defects in denial forms, as well as peer review report submission requirements, should be verified against current provisions. Practitioners should confirm the current regulatory framework before relying on the procedural standards discussed in this older case analysis.
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
CPLR 2106 and 2309: Affirmation & Oath Requirements
CPLR 2106 governs who may submit an affirmation in lieu of an affidavit in New York courts, while CPLR 2309 addresses the requirements for oaths, affidavits, and the certification of out-of-state documents. These seemingly technical provisions have significant practical impact — an improperly executed affirmation or affidavit can render an entire summary judgment motion defective. These articles analyze the formal requirements, common defects, and court decisions that practitioners must navigate when preparing sworn statements.
194 published articles in 2106 and 2309
Keep Reading
More 2106 and 2309 Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Practical guide on how to talk to a judge in New York courts. Proper forms of address, courtroom behavior, and tips from Long Island attorney Jason Tenenbaum. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 24, 2026CPLR § 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, 2026Inability to pay will not allow vacatur of stipulation
NY court rules financial hardship alone cannot void settlement stipulations, emphasizing courts' preference for enforcing agreements once parties consent.
Jan 3, 2015Amended motion/Admissible Reply papers/Defects in affidavits/delay letter vs. verification requests
Court ruling on amended motions, defective IME affidavits, and delay letters vs. verification requests in New York no-fault insurance litigation procedures.
Aug 6, 2013Trial De Novo Rights in NY Arbitration: When Attorney Participation Preserves Your Options
Learn how attorney participation in NY arbitration hearings preserves your trial de novo rights. Expert analysis of Part 28 arbitration rules for Long Island & NYC cases. Call...
Jan 20, 2011Single Motion Rule and Statute of Limitations: Long Island & NYC Legal Guide
Learn New York's single motion rule and statute of limitations in Chester Medical Diagnostic case. Essential guidance for Long Island and NYC no-fault insurance litigation.
Dec 23, 2009Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a CPLR 2106 affirmation and a CPLR 2309 affidavit?
A CPLR 2106 affirmation can be signed by an attorney, physician, dentist, or podiatrist without notarization — the affirmant simply affirms under penalty of perjury. A CPLR 2309 affidavit requires a notary public or authorized officer to administer an oath. Using the wrong form can result in a court rejecting the submission.
When must I use a notarized affidavit versus an affirmation in New York?
Licensed attorneys, physicians, dentists, and podiatrists may use unsworn affirmations under CPLR 2106. All other individuals must use notarized affidavits under CPLR 2309. In no-fault litigation, this distinction frequently arises when submitting medical evidence or opposing summary judgment motions.
Can a court reject evidence submitted in the wrong format?
Yes. Courts routinely reject affidavits and affirmations that do not comply with CPLR 2106 or 2309. An improperly sworn document may be treated as a nullity, which can be fatal to a motion for summary judgment or opposition. Proper formatting is a critical procedural requirement in New York practice.
What is a hypo-technical defect in a no-fault case?
A hypo-technical defect refers to a minor, non-substantive error in a document or filing — such as a wrong date, minor formatting issue, or clerical mistake. New York courts distinguish between hypo-technical defects (which may be overlooked) and substantive defects (which can be fatal to a claim or defense).
When will courts overlook a technical defect?
Courts may overlook a defect if it is truly minor and did not prejudice the opposing party. For example, a small typographical error in a verification request may be excused if the substance of the request was clear. However, if the defect affected the recipient's ability to respond or comply, it will not be overlooked.
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 2106 and 2309 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.