Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing no-fault coverage, with 271 published articles analyzing no-fault 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.
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)
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.
“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 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.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York's no-fault insurance system, established under Insurance Law Article 51, is one of the most complex insurance frameworks in the country. Every motorist must carry Personal Injury Protection coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of fault, up to $50,000 per person.
But insurers routinely deny valid claims using peer reviews, EUO scheduling tactics, fee schedule reductions, and coverage defenses. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has handled over 100,000 no-fault cases since 2002 — from initial claim submissions through arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, trials in Civil Court and Supreme Court, and appeals to the Appellate Term and Appellate Division. Jason Tenenbaum is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
His 2,353+ published legal articles on no-fault practice are cited by attorneys throughout New York. Whether you are dealing with a medical necessity denial, an EUO no-show defense, a fee schedule dispute, or a coverage question, this article provides the kind of detailed case-law analysis that helps practitioners and claimants understand exactly where the law stands.
About This Topic
New York No-Fault Insurance Law
New York's no-fault insurance system requires every driver to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the accident. But insurers routinely deny, delay, and underpay valid claims — using peer reviews, IME no-shows, and fee schedule defenses to avoid paying providers and injured claimants. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has litigated thousands of no-fault arbitrations and court cases since 2002.
271 published articles in No-Fault
Keep Reading
More No-Fault Analysis
Car Accident Recorded Statement in New York: Should You Give One?
The at-fault driver's adjuster wants a recorded statement within days of a New York car accident — and that call is designed to weaken your case.
Apr 5, 2026
Who Pays Car Accident Medical Bills in New York? A Step-by-Step Guide
New York no-fault PIP, primary health insurance, Medicaid/Medicare, and litigation liens — the full payment ladder for car-accident medical bills.
Apr 5, 2026
Non-Receipt Substantiated: Rebutting the Presumption of Receipt in No-Fault Claim Litigation
Compas Med. v Praetorian: an insurer's detailed mail-receipt procedures and lack of any record of the claim rebutted the presumption of receipt, raising an issue of fact.
Nov 28, 2015
Is the Appellate Term Really "Defendant Friendly"? Reflections on Losing No-Fault Appeals
A candid look at mixed Appellate Term results in New York no-fault appeals — and why the court's reputation as defendant friendly does not match reality.
Aug 19, 2010
A medical necessity a** beating
Hernandez affirmed a no-fault summary judgment in 2022. Separate its billing and medical-proof holdings from Jason's broader reaction about surgery claims.
Jul 7, 2022
Another Mailing Again
New York court ruling shows evolution in no-fault insurance mailing requirements, moving away from strict "duty to ensure compliance" standard for claims examiners.
Jun 4, 2021Was 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 no-fault 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.
