Verification defense upheld

Historical note: SS Medical Care found no record basis for an additional non-tampering requirement; it did not presume every copy authentic. The official caption is SS Medical Care, not the unsupported expansion formerly used here. For a later, different-context application of the best-evidence rule, compare Daper Realty (2025).

Last reviewed: September 2026.

The insurer supported its verification defense, and the provider did not oppose the cross-motion in SS Medical Care v Eveready Insurance Co. On August 20, 2014, the Appellate Term held that nothing in that record required additional proof that the attached verification-letter copies had not been altered. It reversed and granted the carrier summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The unopposed record still needed supporting evidence

Eveready established timely initial and follow-up verification requests and that the requested material had not been received. The provider did not submit opposition to the insurer’s cross-motion.

The Civil Court nevertheless required proof that the copies of the letters had not been tampered with or altered. The Appellate Term found no basis in the record for imposing that extra requirement. It vacated the favorable limited-issue ruling the provider had obtained and granted the insurer’s cross-motion.

The absence of opposition is part of the context, not a substitute for the moving party’s evidence. The decision does not say that an insurer need only assert “requested and not received,” without establishing the requests, their mailing and the remaining elements of the defense.

No extra requirement here is not universal authenticity

The court cited Schozer v William Penn Life Insurance Co. of New York in discussing the letter copies. The previous account on this page went too far by turning that discussion into a general presumption that documents are authentic unless someone proves tampering.

The New York courts’ best-evidence guide explains the original-writing rule and recognized grounds for using secondary evidence. Those principles concern proof of a writing’s contents and the foundation for the evidence offered; they do not disappear whenever a party attaches a photocopy.

Likewise, CPLR 4539 permits qualifying reproductions under stated conditions. Its provisions address accurate reproduction and satisfactory identification, with separate requirements concerning certain electronic storage processes. SS Medical Care did not erase those statutory conditions.

A later example shows why the foundation matters

In Daper Realty v Pizzimenti, decided January 2, 2025, the First Department addressed a lease copy supported by testimony concerning the records. It also noted the absence of an actual dispute over the document’s contents.

Daper Realty was not a no-fault verification case. Its value here is the distinction between objecting that a document is a copy and identifying a genuine evidentiary problem with the offered proof. It does not establish that every scanned record, letter or lease can be admitted without a foundation.

For a verification motion, counsel should identify the document, the basis for the witness’s knowledge, the mailing evidence and any specific authenticity or contents dispute. A generic suspicion of alteration and a substantiated challenge are not the same objection.

The provider’s name must be reported accurately

The official opinion identifies the plaintiff as SS Medical Care, P.C. It does not expand those initials or attribute an ideological meaning to the business’s name. The unsupported expansion previously used in this page’s case description has been removed.

Jason’s original personal reaction to the initials is retained below as his commentary, including the family history he chose to publish. It is not a judicial finding about the provider’s identity, intent or affiliations. The legal analysis depends on the verification evidence, not that reaction.

Compare the different motion records

Healing Health Products involved a detailed opposing affidavit that raised a factual issue. Right Aid Medical Supply involved a trial after earlier findings narrowed the issues. Neither had the same unopposed cross-motion record as SS Medical Care.

The result here was dismissal as premature because the verification defense was established, not a merits finding that the treatment was unnecessary. The decision is useful for the unopposed motion it resolved, not as a shortcut around evidentiary foundations.

Jason’s original commentary

The original comments below are retained as historical commentary. The case-specific corrections and later developments are explained above.

Schozer is a case that this particular Plaintiff loves to harp upon; yet, always gets it wrong. I never knew certain Civil Court Kings County judges required an affirmative showing of lack of tampering in order to preserve particular defenses.

FYI: every time I see “SS medical” I get to sick to my stomach. Like many of my generation, both sets of my grandparents escaped Nazi Germany. That said, many of my relatives did not escape. I just think it is completely offensive that someone would name their facility SS Medical, regardless of whether or not there was venal intent. If a portion of my post got you thinking, then that it is a good thing.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the no-fault verification hub and 2026 Chapa update for the governing framework and case directory. Related case notes:

• Radiology Today: the requested MRI films were missing.
• Village Medical Supply: a good reason to request manufacturer invoices.
• Right Aid: reversal over the verification-trial burden.
• Triangle R: provider requests and misaddressed assignor copies.
• St. Barnabas: an insufficient emergency-treatment response.
• Healing Health Products: detailed incoming-mail evidence.

For review of a particular no-fault verification dispute, request a Free Case Review. Keep the requests, responses and relevant claim dates available for that review.