Taking a stab at our respected jurist from Staten Island

New York’s appellate courts occasionally find themselves in the unique position of critiquing not just legal reasoning, but judicial writing style itself. This fascinating dynamic emerged in a 2015 no-fault insurance case where the Second Department’s Appellate Term felt compelled to remind a trial judge about maintaining proper judicial decorum in written decisions.

The case involved a dispute between a medical provider and MetLife Auto & Home Insurance Company, highlighting the ongoing tensions in New York no-fault insurance law between healthcare providers seeking payment and insurers defending against claims. While the underlying legal issues mirror common themes in no-fault litigation — similar to disputes over examination under oath requirements — what made this case noteworthy was the appellate court’s unusual editorial commentary on judicial writing standards.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Richard A. Hellander, M.D., P.C. v Metlife Auto & Home Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 25164 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)

“In view of some of the remarks contained in the amended order, we take this opportunity to remind the judge that, as one commentator has noted:

“Judges may face a dilemma in trying to write opinions that are [*3]figurative, quotable, humorous, or unique. While they may want to forsake the wooden form of judicial opinion writing (issue, facts, law, application, conclusion), they must, in some way, maintain the dignity and integrity that, at least in part, give the judiciary its legitimacy” (Adelberto Jordan, Imagery, Humor and the Judicial Opinion, 41 U Miami L Rev 693, 695 n 11 ).”

It does not matter what the decision says; in my opinion, leave Judge Straniere alone. His decisions are almost always comical, enlightening, ridiculous and erudite – all in one. If most judges put the time and thought into their decisions as this judge does, we would all be a tad bit wiser.

He was reversed anyway, and the case involves a particular plaintiff who floated 312-a summons for many years at his own risk.

Key Takeaway

This case demonstrates the ongoing tension between judicial creativity and institutional dignity in New York courts. While appellate courts can critique writing style, the reversal suggests that substantive legal analysis matters more than tone. The case also involved procedural issues related to CPLR provisions that practitioners should carefully monitor in no-fault litigation.