First Department on Unitrin again
First Department rules on IME no-show requirements in Priority Med v NY Central Mut, requiring competent evidence beyond standard practices for no-fault claims.
First Department on Unitrin again — Read More →25 articles published in April 2015
The articles below were published in April 2015 by Attorney Jason Tenenbaum and the legal team at his Long Island law office. Each article provides detailed analysis of real court decisions, statutory developments, and procedural issues in New York personal injury, no-fault insurance, and employment law.
Attorney Tenenbaum has maintained this legal blog since 2008, creating one of the most comprehensive public archives of New York insurance and personal injury case law analysis available online. Every article draws on his firsthand experience litigating cases in Nassau County District Court, Suffolk County courts, New York City Civil Court, and the Appellate Term. Unlike generic legal content, these articles cite specific case holdings, analyze judicial reasoning, and identify practical takeaways for attorneys and claimants navigating New York's complex legal landscape.
Whether you are an attorney researching a procedural question, an insurance professional evaluating a claim, or an individual trying to understand your legal rights after an accident or workplace dispute, this archive offers substantive legal analysis grounded in real New York courtroom experience. For case-specific legal advice, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
First Department rules on IME no-show requirements in Priority Med v NY Central Mut, requiring competent evidence beyond standard practices for no-fault claims.
First Department on Unitrin again — Read More →Court rejects mailing affidavit from employee who started after the denial was sent, highlighting importance of personal knowledge in proving proper mailing procedures.
Another Mailing — Read More →NY court ruling on no-fault insurance policy exhaustion defense when claims are properly denied but coverage limits reached through arbitration awards to other providers.
Exhaustion of benefits – strict priority of payment regimen is somewhat abrogaded — Read More →Court vacates post-verdict interest when plaintiff fails to provide Medicare status affidavit required under CPLR 5003-a for defendant's federal reporting compliance.
Failure to provide proof of Medicare status kills post-verdict interest — Read More →Court denies both summary judgment motions in no-fault case, highlighting importance of proper EUO scheduling and appearance requirements under Alrof precedent.
Alrof again… — Read More →New York appellate court clarifies strict 15-day deadline for no-fault insurers to request EUOs, ruling that late scheduling letters are nullities under regulations.
EUO time-frame according to the Appellate Term Second Department — Read More →NY court rules insurers don't need objective basis to request EUOs under No-Fault Regulation 68, making EUO requests easier to justify as reasonable.
Objective basis need not be proven — Read More →Analysis of Paulus v Christopher Vacirca ruling on CPLR 3215(g)(1) notice requirements for default judgments when defendants have appeared in NY actions.
Defaults – the right to notice — Read More →New York court rules that trial costs and expert witness cancellation fees are not reimbursable when defense attorney becomes ill, reversing $6,900 award.
Cost of doctor for aborted trial not reimbursable — Read More →NY Court rules parties cannot stipulate away pure coverage issues in no-fault insurance disputes. Key precedent for coverage defense strategies.
Parties cannot stipulate away issues of pure coverage — Read More →Court rules that having a non-disruptive representative present during an IME doesn't prevent defendants from conducting meaningful medical examinations under CPLR 3121.
Non-disruptive representative allowed at IME — Read More →Landmark case establishing first application of 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(g)(1)(ii) regarding prevailing fees and timeliness requirements in New York no-fault insurance claims.
First application of 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(g)(1)(ii) — Read More →Court finds insurer can deny coverage despite keeping premiums when policyholder misrepresented property status on application, highlighting material misrepresentation defense complexities.
An interesting case in the realm of misrepresentations — Read More →Court rules that a physician's medical affirmation remains admissible even after license revocation, as long as the affirmation was executed while licensed.
Suspended physician — Read More →NY Court ruling on auto insurance cancellation: when another carrier picks up coverage, prior policy automatically terminates under VTL §313(1)(a).
Defective cancellation abrogated upon proof that another carrier picked up risk — Read More →Appellate Term reverses course on Unitrin case law regarding IME no-show denials and retroactive claim denial rights in New York no-fault insurance disputes.
Appellate Term (again) reverses course on Unitrin — Read More →Court ruling on non-receipt denials and verification requirements in NY no-fault insurance claims, including burden of proof standards for medical providers.
Non receipt and verification — Read More →Court clarifies that failure to mail no-fault denial forms in duplicate is not automatically fatal to insurance company's defense, reinforcing procedural flexibility.
Does not need to be mailed in duplicate (again) — Read More →Second Department case analyzing IME failure as coverage defense in New York no-fault insurance law, examining conditions precedent to insurer liability.
A taste of Unitrin in the Second Department — Read More →New York no-fault insurance carriers risk costly legal defeats when third-party mailing vendors fail to prove proper delivery procedures for claim denials.
Third-party vendor troubles — Read More →Court ruling clarifies timing requirements for EUO follow-up requests in no-fault cases, emphasizing proper application of verification timeframes under NY insurance regulations.
The application of the 10-day follow up period to send EUO requests — Read More →NY court reduces CPT Code 20553 billing from $4,000 to under $1,000 using workers' compensation fee schedule Ground Rules 3 and 5 in no-fault insurance case.
CPT Code 20553 reduced from $4,000 to less than $1,000 — Read More →Court rules EUO denial valid despite not specifying examination dates, rejecting plaintiff's argument that omission made denial vague or conclusory under New York no-fault law.
EUO denial not vague or conclusory for not stating dates — Read More →Court reaffirms that healthcare providers who fail to object to EUO requests cannot later challenge their reasonableness in discovery disputes.
Failure to object (again) spells end to fishing expedition on “reasonableness” — Read More →Long Island attorney Jason Tenenbaum launches his new website in 2015, transitioning from his popular no-fault insurance law blog to provide enhanced legal content.
Welcome to my new site — Read More →The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum publishes legal analysis on a regular basis covering developments in New York personal injury litigation, no-fault insurance disputes, employment discrimination, and related practice areas. Attorney Tenenbaum started writing about New York case law in 2008, and the blog has grown into a library of over 2,353 articles analyzing court decisions from the Appellate Term, Appellate Division, and Court of Appeals.
Topics frequently covered include the prima facie case standard in no-fault actions, the 30-day preclusion rule under Insurance Regulation 192, IME and EUO no-show defenses, summary judgment practice under CPLR 3212, default judgment standards, verification and claims submission procedures, and the serious injury threshold under Insurance Law Section 5102(d). Employment law articles address wrongful termination, workplace discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, wage and hour violations, and employer retaliation claims.
Each article is written for a professional audience but remains accessible to non-lawyers seeking to understand how New York courts handle specific legal issues. The firm serves clients across Long Island, including Nassau County, Suffolk County, and the five boroughs of New York City. If you have a legal question about any topic covered in these articles, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, confidential consultation.
New York's civil court system is one of the most complex in the nation, with multiple overlapping jurisdictions that affect how personal injury, no-fault insurance, and employment cases are litigated. The New York City Civil Court handles claims up to $25,000 in the five boroughs, while the District Courts in Nassau and Suffolk Counties handle similar matters on Long Island. For claims exceeding $25,000, the Supreme Court serves as the primary trial court with unlimited monetary jurisdiction. Despite its name, the Supreme Court is not the highest court in New York — that distinction belongs to the Court of Appeals, which sits in Albany and decides approximately 200 cases per year.
Appeals from Civil Court and District Court decisions go to the Appellate Term, which is divided into departments corresponding to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Term for the Second Department — which covers Nassau County, Suffolk County, Kings County (Brooklyn), Queens County, and Richmond County (Staten Island) — hears hundreds of no-fault insurance appeals each year and has developed a substantial body of case law on topics including timely denial, verification procedures, proof of mailing, fee schedule disputes, and medical necessity standards. The Appellate Division, Second Department, hears appeals from Supreme Court and from the Appellate Term, and its decisions are binding on all lower courts within its jurisdiction.
Understanding where your case falls within this system is critical. A no-fault insurance dispute involving a $3,000 medical bill will follow a very different procedural path than a $500,000 personal injury claim arising from the same automobile accident. The former is typically resolved through mandatory arbitration before the American Arbitration Association under Insurance Department Regulation 68, while the latter proceeds through Supreme Court with full discovery, independent medical examinations under CPLR 3121, depositions, and potentially a jury trial. Attorney Tenenbaum has practiced extensively in all of these venues and understands the strategic considerations unique to each.
Several statutes and regulations appear frequently in the articles archived on this page. Insurance Law Article 51 establishes New York's no-fault insurance framework, requiring every motor vehicle policy to include personal injury protection benefits covering medical expenses, lost earnings (up to $2,000 per month), and other basic economic loss up to $50,000 per person. 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (Insurance Regulation 192) imposes a 30-day deadline on insurers to pay or deny no-fault claims after receiving proof of claim and all demanded verification, and the failure to timely deny results in preclusion of most coverage defenses.
In personal injury litigation, Insurance Law Section 5102(d) defines the categories of "serious injury" that a plaintiff must establish before recovering non-economic damages in a motor vehicle accident case. The nine categories — death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, fracture, loss of a fetus, permanent loss of use, permanent consequential limitation, significant limitation of use, and the 90/180-day category — each have specific evidentiary requirements that have been refined through decades of appellate decisions. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has litigated serious injury threshold motions in hundreds of cases and regularly writes about new developments in this area.
Employment claims in New York implicate both state and federal statutes. The New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law Section 296) prohibits employment discrimination based on age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, sex, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics, familial status, marital status, and domestic violence victim status. The New York City Human Rights Law provides even broader protections and applies a more liberal standard. At the federal level, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act provide additional protections but are subject to administrative exhaustion requirements through the EEOC.
Workers' compensation cases in New York are governed by the Workers' Compensation Law and administered by the Workers' Compensation Board. Injured workers are entitled to medical treatment, lost wage benefits (typically two-thirds of the average weekly wage, subject to a statutory maximum), and permanency awards for lasting disabilities. Third-party claims — such as personal injury lawsuits against property owners or general contractors under Labor Law Sections 200, 240, and 241 — often run parallel to workers' compensation proceedings and involve complex lien and subrogation issues that require experienced legal counsel to navigate properly.
The articles in this archive analyze real decisions from courts across New York State, with a particular focus on the Appellate Term and Appellate Division decisions that establish binding precedent for trial courts on Long Island and in New York City. Whether you are an attorney preparing a motion, an insurance professional evaluating a claim, or an individual trying to understand your rights, these articles provide the detailed legal analysis that generic legal websites simply cannot offer. For personalized advice about your specific situation, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum at (516) 750-0595.
The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. serves clients from its office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. The firm represents individuals and businesses throughout Long Island — including the towns of Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton, Huntington, and Oyster Bay in Suffolk County, and the cities and villages of Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa, and Levittown in Nassau County. The firm also handles cases in all five boroughs of New York City: Queens, Brooklyn (Kings County), Manhattan (New York County), the Bronx, and Staten Island (Richmond County). Court appearances are regularly made at Nassau County Supreme Court in Mineola, Suffolk County Supreme Court in Riverhead, the Nassau County District Court, the Suffolk County District Court, and the New York City Civil Court throughout the five boroughs.
Injured? Don't Wait.
Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today
No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.