Skip to main content
The Arbitrator Charles Sloane 2106 rule: deemed arbitrary.
Evidence

The Arbitrator Charles Sloane 2106 rule: deemed arbitrary.

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

First Department rules that no-fault arbitrators cannot strictly enforce CPLR 2106 evidentiary requirements, calling such rigid adherence "arbitrary" in landmark decision.

This article is part of our ongoing evidence coverage, with 128 published articles analyzing evidence 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.

No-fault insurance arbitrations operate under different evidentiary standards than traditional court proceedings. While courts must strictly follow procedural rules like CPLR 2106 for business records, arbitrators have broader discretion in determining what evidence to consider. This flexibility is designed to make arbitration more efficient and accessible.

However, some arbitrators have been improperly applying courtroom evidentiary standards to arbitration proceedings, rejecting otherwise relevant evidence simply because it doesn’t meet technical certification requirements. This overly rigid approach defeats the purpose of streamlined arbitration procedures and can unfairly prejudice parties who present substantively valid evidence.

The First Department’s decision in Auto One Insurance Co. v Hillside Chiropractic addresses this problem directly, establishing important precedent about evidentiary flexibility in no-fault arbitrations.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Auto One Ins. Co. v Hillside Chiropractic, P.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 01750 (1st Dept. 2015)(1st Dept 2015)

“We find that the no-fault arbitrator’s decision to adhere, with strict conformity, to the evidentiary rule set forth in CPLR 2106, although such conformity is not required (see 11 NYCRR § 65-4.5 [“The arbitrator shall be the judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence offered and strict conformity to legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary.”], was arbitrary. Accordingly, the award must be vacated (see In re Petrofsky , 54 NY2d 207, 211 ). We note that since no substantive determination regarding the weight of the IME report was ever made, the Master Arbitrator and the IAS court erred in deferring to the no-fault arbitrator’s determination.”

How many times has an arbitrator declined to accept your proofs because they do not comply with 2106? In my opinion, one time too many. The Appellate Division saw the light,

Key Takeaway

This decision clarifies that no-fault arbitrators cannot mechanically reject evidence for failing to meet CPLR 2106 requirements. The regulations explicitly grant arbitrators discretion over evidence admissibility, and strict adherence to courtroom evidentiary rules in arbitration settings constitutes arbitrary decision-making that warrants vacating the award.


Legal Update (February 2026): Since 2015, New York’s no-fault arbitration regulations have undergone several amendments, including potential updates to 11 NYCRR § 65-4.5 regarding arbitrator discretion and evidentiary standards. The procedural framework governing business records admissibility and CPLR 2106 applications in arbitration contexts may have been modified through regulatory changes or subsequent appellate decisions. Practitioners should verify current provisions of the no-fault regulations and recent case law interpreting arbitrator evidentiary authority.

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

Evidentiary Issues in New York Litigation

The rules of evidence determine what information a court or arbitrator may consider in deciding a case. In New York no-fault and personal injury practice, evidentiary issues arise constantly — from the admissibility of business records and medical reports to the foundation requirements for expert testimony and the application of hearsay exceptions. These articles examine how New York courts apply evidentiary rules in insurance and injury litigation, with practical guidance for building admissible evidence at every stage of a case.

128 published articles in Evidence

Keep Reading

More Evidence Analysis

Evidence

CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation

NY CPLR 2106 amendment eliminates notarized affidavits and certificates of conformity. Learn how this changes litigation practice. Call 516-750-0595.

Feb 18, 2026
Evidence

When the trial court in a bench trial does not assess credibility

Learn when NY appellate courts can review bench trial credibility findings. Expert legal analysis of appellate standards. Call 516-750-0595 for consultation.

Nov 3, 2019
Evidence

Civil Court overturns Appellate Term precedent

Civil Court overturns Appellate Term precedent on no-fault peer review expert testimony, ruling original peer reviewer must testify at trial

Mar 13, 2012
Business records

Why don't Defendant's start to use the Notice to Admit to establish their Prima Facie? Am I missing something?

Exploring whether defendants can use Notices to Admit to establish prima facie cases in New York no-fault insurance litigation and departmental differences.

Jul 1, 2010
Evidence

An affidavit is not be admissible at trial – You knew this already

Learn why affidavits cannot be used at trial in New York courts. Expert analysis of evidence rules, cross-examination requirements, and litigation strategy for Long Island and NYC...

Nov 8, 2009
Evidence

Unsworn letters not enough

Court ruling shows unsworn, unsigned letters of medical necessity lack probative value in no-fault insurance disputes, emphasizing proper documentation requirements.

Oct 6, 2015
View all Evidence articles

Common Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

What types of evidence are important in no-fault and personal injury cases?

Key types of evidence include medical records and bills, police accident reports, diagnostic imaging (MRI, X-ray, CT scans), expert medical opinions, business records from insurance companies and providers, witness statements, photographs of injuries and the accident scene, and employment records for lost wage claims. The rules of evidence under New York CPLR and the Evidence Rules govern what is admissible in court proceedings.

What is the business records exception to hearsay in New York?

Under CPLR 4518(a), a business record is admissible if it was made in the regular course of business, it was the regular course of business to make such a record, and the record was made at or near the time of the event recorded. This exception is crucial in no-fault litigation because insurers' denial letters, claim logs, and peer review reports are often offered as business records. The foundation for the business record must be established through testimony or a certification.

What role does diagnostic imaging play as evidence in injury cases?

Diagnostic imaging — MRIs, CT scans, X-rays, and EMG/NCV studies — provides objective evidence of injuries such as herniated discs, fractures, ligament tears, and nerve damage. Courts and arbitrators give significant weight to imaging evidence because it is less subjective than physical examination findings. In serious injury threshold cases under §5102(d), imaging evidence corroborating clinical findings strengthens the plaintiff's case considerably.

How do New York courts handle surveillance evidence in personal injury cases?

Insurance companies frequently hire investigators to conduct video surveillance of plaintiffs to challenge injury claims. Under CPLR 3101(i), a party must disclose surveillance materials prior to trial, including films, photographs, and videotapes. Surveillance evidence can be powerful for impeachment if it contradicts the plaintiff's testimony about limitations. However, courts may preclude surveillance that was not properly disclosed or that is misleadingly edited.

What is hearsay and why does it matter in New York litigation?

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and it is generally inadmissible under New York evidence rules. In no-fault and personal injury cases, hearsay issues frequently arise with medical records, peer review reports, denial letters, and witness statements. Key exceptions include the business records rule (CPLR 4518), party admissions, excited utterances, and statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment. Understanding hearsay rules is essential because improperly admitted or excluded evidence can change the outcome of a case.

Was this article helpful?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.

Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.

Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

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 evidence 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.

Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Discussion

Comments (12)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

KL
Kurt Lundgren
Jason – interesting post … how many times CPLR 2106 objection …. never for me. Really. I cant think of one time that a defense attorney claimed that a document or opinion was hearsay, or that I did the same. But I don’t see your side of it … Respondent’s side. So never a problem with me … till now. Next case between us …. CPLR 2106 objections across the board! Lol.
CS
Charles Sloane
Jason: This is not a Charles Sloane Rule. Just following the rules of Court. If the legislature does not find chiropractors, podiatrist, psychologists, acupuncturists, et al to be sufficient professionals to be able to affirm, who am I to argue. I find it interesting that though this case was strictly a second department case, you felt you needed to bring it in First Dept in order to get the result you wanted. Even the lower Court in Supreme-NY agreed with me and the Master. Talk about Forum Shopping.
J
JT Author
Arbitrator Sloane, You know I love you and I have been ribbing you about this now for years. The Second Department has expressed their dislike towards vacating arbitration awards. Why engage on a suicide mission? The First Department will engage in a more robust review if the facts support it. Was it forum shopping? No more than when a Plaintiff chooses Civil Kings or opens an office in Nassau County to obtain access to the Long Island and Queens arbitrators.
CS
Charles Sloane
Touche’. Same here. Why not bring your next appeal in 2nd Dept and see if you get the same result!!..
YS
Yog Sothothery
Not sure I see the court’s reasoning here – even if I am in favor of a relaxed evidentiary standard in arbitrations for both sides… How was it arbitrary?
CS
Charles Sloane
Yog: The First Dept was arbitrary. I wasn’t. I used prior case law and prior arbitrator decisions. The First Dept is agenda driven and that is why the Article 75 was brought there.
CA
Captain America
Charles let me tell you from experience in fighting the Nazis. This is how Nazi Germany started.
KL
Kurt Lundgren
Why dont I take all those Unitrin decisions issued by an arbitrator in the first department and commence article 75’s in the second department? Heck, maybe the 3rd Department too. Brilliant Jason. Only one thing …. that kind of stuff really effects the integrity of the system. Its not right.
TH
The Hater
There are not many men I can say this about in this business but let me say this. Charles Sloane is a good man.
J
JT Author
Arbitrator Sloane is a good man, a good arbitrator and learned about the law. We had a disagreement on the law. Today I won. Tomorrow he could win. Appealing anything is a crap-shoot. I enjoy appearing before him. I try to put myself on the calendar when it is an appearance before him.
AK
Alan Klaus
Absolutely ridiculous decision. Once again loony 1st dept. Decision. Arbitrator Sloan had every right to follow the CPLR. LUDICROUS!
AK
Alan Klaus
Absolutely ridiculous decision. Once again loony 1st dept. Decision. Arbitrator Sloane had every right to follow the CPLR. LUDICROUS!

Legal Resources

Understanding New York Evidence Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how evidence cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For evidence matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review