Key Takeaway
Faith Acupuncture v Maya: insufficient mailing-procedure proof defeated the insurer's IME no-show motion, without deciding whether the letters were sent.
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.
The insurer lost its summary-judgment motion in Faith Acupuncture, P.C. v Maya Assurance Co., decided December 19, 2014. Its affidavit did not adequately describe a procedure for addressing and mailing the IME appointment letters. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the dismissal of the provider’s complaint.
Historical note: This 2014 motion failed on mailing-procedure proof; the later Colin decision addresses proof of the correct mailing address, a separate question.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Jason Tenenbaum’s original note
The paragraph below is Jason’s original 2015 comment. The court found insufficient mailing proof on the motion, not that the letters were never mailed.
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.
This is something you do not see too often nowadays: a court stating that the IME letters were not mailed. Most reversals or issues seems to involve the proof of no show. Of course, this only invites a trial where the vendor will have to prove that the letters were mailed.
What the affidavit failed to establish
The defect was proof of proper scheduling. The court did not find that the letters had never been mailed, and it did not award judgment to the provider. Jason’s original comment uses shorthand for that failure of proof; the distinction matters when deciding what remains for trial.
The opinion does not reproduce the affidavit or prescribe a word-for-word checklist. A motion built around an office-mailing practice needs evidence explaining that practice and the witness’s knowledge of it. Assertions about nonattendance do not fill a gap in the notice evidence.
Compare Colin’s matching NF-2 and NF-3 addresses with Renelique’s unexplained address mismatch. Those cases concern where notices were sent. Faith concerns the evidence that notices were properly addressed and mailed at all. For a claim-file review, keep the actual notices alongside the mailing affidavit and identify which part of the mailing process the witness can explain.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show topic hub, then compare these related notes:
- Colin: matching NF-2 and NF-3 addresses
- Renelique: address mismatch and attorney notice
- Metro 8: the witness’s basis of knowledge
- Alrof: timely denials and the Unitrin citation
- BR Clinton: a gap in denial-mailing proof
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the appointment letters, relevant claim forms and motion papers.
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
The IME no-show at trial – the eagle has arisen
Eagle Surgical Supply v GEICO highlights the critical requirement that insurance companies must present witnesses with personal knowledge to prove IME no-shows at trial.
Aug 6, 2013
The failure to attend IMEs is now considered a Chubb coverage defense
Landmark 2011 Unitrin case establishes IME no-show as Chubb coverage defense, allowing retroactive claim denials regardless of initial denial reasons in NY no-fault law.
Mar 20, 2011
No show and non receipt
Progressive Health: mutual advance rescheduling was not an IME no-show. Separate mailing and nonreceipt affidavits left claim submission for trial.
May 11, 2017
An appeal is not a second chance to right what once went wrong.
Mind & Body Acupuncture v ELRAC: the court declined an apartment-number objection first raised on appeal and affirmed the insurer's judgment.
Aug 24, 2015Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
3 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
How does an insurer prove IME letters were mailed in New York?
Proof may come from someone with knowledge of the actual mailing or from a supported account of an office practice designed to ensure proper addressing and mailing. Faith found the procedural affidavit insufficient; it did not prescribe a single mandatory form.
What happens if the insurer cannot prove the IME letters were mailed?
In Faith Acupuncture, the insurer lost its summary-judgment motion because its mailing affidavit was insufficient. That was not a finding that no letters were sent or a final judgment awarding the provider benefits.
Is proof of mailing different from proof of the no-show itself?
Yes. The notice evidence addresses whether the examination was properly scheduled; the nonattendance evidence addresses whether the person failed to appear. Proof of one does not supply missing proof of the other.
Was 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.
