Key Takeaway
Court refused to follow Appellate Division standards in IME no-show case, incorrectly ruling on mailing requirements and attorney representation burden.
This article is part of our ongoing ime issues coverage, with 149 published articles analyzing ime issues 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.
Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Citiwide Auto Leasing, 2014 NY Slip Op 50476(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
I am guessing nobody realized that the burden is on the medical provider to demonstrate that the attorney that the letter was mailed to did not represent the EIP. American Transit v. Leon. As to Lincoln Avenue v. Lincoln Place, the Courts have held that if the letter is mailed to a building sans apartment number or suite number, then there is sufficient proof of mailing. It would seem to follow that an error with “avenue” and “place” should not vitiate a proper mailing. The Appellate Division and Appellate Term, First Department have held that. The question here is whether Respondent’s brief hit on any of these points. If they did not (or at least argue it before the panel), then shame on the attorney.
I would seek leave to go to the Second Department on this one.
(1) “With respect to the address to which the IME scheduling letters were mailed, defendant’s cross-moving papers show that the letters were sent to plaintiff’s assignor at “285 Lincoln Avenue” while the NF-3 form plaintiff submitted to defendant states that plaintiff resides at “285 Lincoln Place.” Wrong on the law.
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.
(2) “To the extent that copies of the IME scheduling letters were sent to an attorney, there is nothing in the record to suggest that plaintiff’s assignor was represented by that attorney. Consequently, defendant failed to demonstrate that the IMEs had been properly scheduled” Wrong on the law.
(3) “nnexed to defendant’s cross-moving papers were copies of defendant’s denial of claim forms, which denied plaintiff’s claims on multiple grounds. As a result, plaintiff did not meet its prima facie burden”
Related Articles
- Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- IME Notification Requirements in New York No-Fault Cases: Address Matching Rules
- IME No Show: Understanding Confusing Court Interpretations of Duplicate Mailing Requirements
- Nassau County court applies Unitrin through front and back door analysis
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 decision, New York’s no-fault IME scheduling requirements and notice provisions may have been modified through regulatory amendments or updated court interpretations. Practitioners handling IME no-show cases should verify current mailing address standards, attorney representation notification requirements, and burden of proof standards under the most recent Insurance Department regulations and appellate decisions.
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.
Keep Reading
More IME issues Analysis
Simple addition is insufficient
Jodi Jacobs's 2021 mixed appeal: four claims dismissed, one fee balance unresolved, and why the schedule alone did not prove correct code use.
May 22, 2021
NF-3 is the operative document
Unitrin Direct v Beckles: the NF-3, timely IME requests and two missed examinations. Distinguish the request deadline from the examination date.
Mar 22, 2021
Another IME no -show – but this was mine so it is blogworthy
Personal injury attorney discusses court ruling on IME no-show affidavits and evidence requirements for New York no-fault insurance cases.
Jun 28, 2015
The NF-2 and the letters did not match
Court ruling on IME scheduling letters highlights importance of consistent procedures in New York no-fault insurance cases when addresses don't match NF-2 forms.
Jul 16, 2013
Proving an IME No-Show: Doctor's Affidavit Held Sufficient in Trimed v ELRAC
Trimed v ELRAC: an affidavit from the doctor scheduled to perform the IMEs, tied to the address in the scheduling letters, proves non-appearance in NY no-fault.
Dec 1, 2010
The IME Recollection Issue: Proving an IME No-Show Years After the Missed Exam
Utica Acupuncture v Amica: an unexplained two-year recollection defeated IME summary judgment. Compare the separate 2025 EUO time-lapse decision.
Mar 25, 2017Was 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 ime issues 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.
