Why Trust This Analysis
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)
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.
“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
- CPLR 2106: Expert Report Requirements (Complete Guide)
- 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.
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
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
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
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
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
An affidavit is not be admissible at trial – You knew this already
Learn why affidavits cannot be used at trial in New York courts.
Nov 8, 2009
Unsworn Letters Not Enough: Why Medical Necessity Rebuttals Must Be Sworn and Signed
Innovative MR Imaging rejected unsigned, unsworn opposition in 2015. Separate that Second Department ruling from today's CPLR 2106 affirmation rules.
Oct 6, 2015Was 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 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.
