Key Takeaway
First Department rules that no-fault arbitrators cannot strictly enforce CPLR 2106 evidentiary requirements, calling such rigid adherence "arbitrary" in landmark decision.
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.
Related Articles
- First Department decisions impacting no-fault practice
- Written opposition strategies for procedural defects
- Expert testimony relying on unsworn MRI reports
- Civil Court evidence rules and peer review reports
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
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.
