Key Takeaway
Court denies motion to strike CPLR 3212(g) findings in no-fault case, but leaves open question about plaintiff's appeal rights when judges refuse to make such findings.
Understanding CPLR 3212(g) Findings in No-Fault Insurance Cases
In no-fault insurance litigation, CPLR 3212(g) findings play a crucial role in establishing a plaintiff’s prima facie case. These judicial determinations help streamline cases by resolving certain foundational elements without requiring extensive evidentiary hearings. However, procedural questions often arise about when these findings can be challenged or appealed.
The recent Appellate Term decision in EMC Health Products v. Geico Insurance Company provides important guidance on defendants’ ability to strike these favorable findings, while also raising an intriguing question about plaintiffs’ appellate rights when courts refuse to make prima facie determinations altogether.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
EMC Health Prods., Inc. v Geico Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50786(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“On appeal, defendant fails to articulate a sufficient basis to strike the Civil Court’s CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff’s favor. Defendant’s denials admitted the receipt of the bills at issue (see East Acupuncture, P.C. v Electric Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 128, 2007 NY Slip Op 51281; ; Oleg Barshay, D.C., P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 74 ), and plaintiff was not required to establish a CPLR 4518 foundation for the bills (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 33 ).”
Here is the unanswered question. Can a Plaintiff appeal the finding of a judge who refuses to make these 3212(g) findings?
Key Takeaway
The Appellate Term upheld Civil Court’s CPLR 3212(g) findings where the defendant’s own admissions established receipt of medical bills, and no CPLR 4518 foundation was required under the Etienne decision. However, the case highlights an unresolved procedural issue: whether plaintiffs can appeal when judges decline to make these beneficial summary judgment findings in the first place.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, CPLR 3212(g) procedures and the standards for prima facie determinations in no-fault cases may have been modified through court rule amendments or evolving case law interpretations. Additionally, Appellate Term precedents regarding motions to strike judicial findings and the scope of defendants’ procedural challenges may have been refined or superseded. Practitioners should verify current CPLR provisions and recent appellate decisions when relying on these procedural standards.
