Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing procedural issues coverage, with 201 published articles analyzing procedural 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.
Court Declines Partial Summary Judgment in Medical Necessity Dispute
In no-fault insurance litigation, parties frequently seek summary judgment to resolve disputes without trial. However, courts will only grant such motions when there are no genuine issues of material fact requiring resolution by a jury or judge. The recent Appellate Term decision in Pollenex Services, Inc. v. GEICO General Insurance Co. demonstrates how factual disputes over medical necessity can derail even well-crafted summary judgment motions.
This case involved a healthcare provider’s claim against an insurer for reimbursement of medical services. The defendant insurer filed a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the entire complaint, while the plaintiff requested partial summary judgment and asked the court to limit the trial issues under CPLR 3212. The Appellate Term’s decision highlights the critical importance of establishing clear factual records when seeking summary disposition in no-fault cases, particularly when medical necessity remains in dispute.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Pollenex Servs., Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50953(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
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.
“Upon a review of the record, we find that there is a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue. Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied. We decline plaintiff’s request to limit the issues for trial (see CPLR 3212 ).”
Key Takeaway
When factual disputes exist regarding medical necessity in no-fault cases, courts will deny summary judgment motions from both parties. The Appellate Term emphasized that genuine issues of material fact must be resolved at trial, and refused to limit trial issues even when requested by the plaintiff. This underscores the importance of developing comprehensive factual records before seeking summary judgment relief in medical necessity disputes.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, CPLR 3212 summary judgment procedures may have been modified through legislative amendments or court rule changes, and standards for medical necessity determinations in no-fault cases may have evolved through subsequent appellate decisions. Practitioners should verify current summary judgment motion requirements and recent precedents regarding factual disputes over medical necessity before relying on the procedural analysis discussed in this post.
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
Procedural Issues in New York Litigation
New York civil procedure governs every stage of litigation — from pleading requirements and service of process to motion practice, discovery deadlines, and trial procedures. The CPLR creates strict procedural rules that can make or break a case regardless of the underlying merits. These articles examine the procedural pitfalls, timing requirements, and strategic considerations that practitioners face in New York state courts, with a particular focus on no-fault insurance and personal injury practice.
201 published articles in Procedural Issues
Keep Reading
More Procedural Issues Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Address the judge as 'Your Honor,' stand when you speak, wait to be recognized, and keep answers short and honest. A Long Island trial lawyer explains.
Feb 24, 2026
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
It is not a Note of Issue
New York appellate court incorrectly applies CPLR 3212(a) note of issue requirement to Civil Court, where only a notice of trial is filed, creating statutory confusion.
Apr 8, 2014
Renewal granted and Plaintiff loses.
Ashraf Ashour allowed renewal after companion-case papers were filed by mistake. The corrected proof led to dismissal of the no-fault claims.
Mar 20, 2012
Those promised framed issue hearings on "stamped signature" cases were quite short lived
Amercure's opinion was withdrawn from publication, not proven vacated. Read Jason's dated reaction with the later Park Slope signature-hearing decision.
Mar 26, 2010
An unsigned OSC on appeal – procedure.
Appeals court procedure when a trial court declines to sign a proposed order to show cause, including when leave to appeal is required versus direct appellate review.
Aug 23, 2018Was 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 procedural 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.
