Motion to strike “3212(g) findings” denied

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?

Legal Significance

The EMC Health Products decision demonstrates the limited circumstances under which defendants can challenge favorable CPLR 3212(g) findings made by trial courts. This provision allows courts to make partial findings on undisputed facts even when denying summary judgment motions, essentially streamlining future proceedings by resolving foundational elements. When defendants admit receiving medical bills in their denials, they create admissible admissions against interest that satisfy the plaintiff’s prima facie burden without additional evidentiary foundations.

The court’s reliance on the Etienne decision represents a watershed moment in no-fault litigation. Before Etienne, plaintiffs routinely needed to establish business records foundations under CPLR 4518 for medical bills, requiring testimony about recordkeeping practices and procedures. The landmark Viviane Etienne Medical Care decision eliminated this requirement when bills are submitted with claims, recognizing that the no-fault system’s regulatory framework provides sufficient reliability guarantees. This procedural simplification allows courts to make 3212(g) findings based solely on defendants’ admissions without requiring extensive evidentiary showings.

The decision also touches upon an important gap in appellate procedure. While defendants can appeal adverse CPLR 3212(g) findings, the procedural mechanism for plaintiffs to challenge a trial court’s refusal to make such findings remains unclear. This asymmetry potentially disadvantages plaintiffs who succeed in establishing undisputed facts but fail to obtain judicial recognition through 3212(g) findings, forcing them to re-prove these elements at trial.

Practical Implications

For healthcare providers, this decision validates a streamlined approach to establishing prima facie cases in no-fault litigation. When insurance companies issue denials that admit receiving the medical bills—even if denying them on other grounds such as medical necessity or lack of coverage—those admissions alone can support CPLR 3212(g) findings establishing that services were rendered and billed. This allows providers to focus their summary judgment efforts on contesting the specific defenses raised rather than proving basic foundational elements.

Insurance companies should be cognizant that language in denial forms admitting receipt of bills may be used against them in subsequent litigation. Defense counsel should carefully review form denials to ensure they don’t inadvertently create admissions that will support CPLR 3212(g) findings. However, this must be balanced against regulatory requirements for denial specificity under the no-fault regulations.

The unanswered question posed by Jason Tenenbaum regarding plaintiffs’ ability to appeal refusals to make 3212(g) findings deserves attention. Practitioners facing this scenario should consider: (1) whether the refusal to make findings constitutes an appealable ruling or merely a discretionary decision; (2) whether mandamus or prohibition relief might be available to compel findings on clearly undisputed facts; or (3) whether seeking reargument presents a more practical remedy.

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.

Related Articles

• CPLR 3212 Summary Judgment: When Relief Becomes Improper (Complete Guide)
• Partial Summary Judgment granted on appeal
• CPLR 3212(g) struck
• Another really intelligent appeal