Key Takeaway
Medical Arts upheld discovery during a medical-necessity motion. Read the CPLR 3214 stay exception and the limits of this 2015 MRI-provider decision.
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 99 published articles analyzing discovery 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.
The MRI provider obtained discovery while the insurer’s medical-necessity motion was pending. The appellate court affirmed that discovery order. It did not decide that the scans were medically necessary.
A discovery order, not a medical ruling
Medical Arts Radiological Group v NY Central Mutual, 2015 NY Slip Op 51035(U), decided July 7, 2015, concerned the provider’s motion to compel disclosure. The insurer had already moved for summary judgment based on a peer review.
The Civil Court directed verified responses to the discovery demands. On appeal, the insurer did not dispute receiving those demands or failing to respond. The Appellate Term found a legitimate need for discovery to answer the medical-necessity motion and left the disclosure order in place.
The later denial of the insurer’s summary-judgment motion, with leave to renew after the appeal, was procedural background. The order under review granted discovery; it was not an appellate award of payment to the provider.
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.
Why the automatic stay did not end the inquiry
CPLR 3214(b) ordinarily stays disclosure when a summary-judgment motion is served, unless the court orders otherwise. The court relied on that exception and the demonstrated need for the requested material. Filing the motion did not remove the court’s discretion to direct disclosure.
For a discovery application, identify the requested evidence and explain why it is needed to answer the pending motion. Medical Arts does not establish that every discovery demand must be answered before any medical-necessity motion can be decided.
Jason’s original comment
Jason’s July 2015 comment was a prediction about which providers might need discovery. The court did not establish a categorical MRI/DME exception or an EMG exclusion.
I do not think this would apply to an EMG provider or most conservative care providers. Yet, MRI providers and DME providers cannot legitimately interpose meaningful rebuttal without any discovery.
Still current (September 2026): CPLR 3214(b) retains the court’s power to order disclosure despite the summary-judgment stay; the 2015 decision applies that exception to a demonstrated discovery need.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the medical necessity and peer review hub.
- The denial form and the report-request rule: A.B. Medical
- A treating-physician letter that raised a factual issue: Complete Radiology
- Missing justification for additional studies: Neomy
- An IME rebuttal that did not address the examiner: Eastern Star
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the denial and supporting medical papers.
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 2,600 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
Discovery Practice in New York Courts
Discovery is the pre-trial process through which parties exchange information relevant to the dispute. In New York, discovery practice is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions, interrogatories, document demands, and physical examinations. Disputes over the scope of discovery, compliance with demands, and sanctions for noncompliance are frequent in both no-fault and personal injury cases. These articles analyze discovery rules, court decisions on discovery disputes, and strategies for effective discovery practice.
99 published articles in Discovery
Keep Reading
More Discovery Analysis
FOIL and the Court System's Memos to Judges: NYCLU v OCA (1st Dept 2026)
On September 29, 2026 the First Department upheld an order to release 22 OCA memos to judges under FOIL. What the ruling holds, and what it leaves open.
Oct 3, 2026Litigation Funding Disclosure in New York: What Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Means for Both Bars — and for Injured Clients
A NY appellate court allowed defendants to discover third-party litigation funding in a personal injury suit. What Lituma means for both bars and claimants.
Jun 14, 2026
The errata sheet is not a do over
Appellate court ruling on CPLR 3116(a) errata sheets: deponents cannot make radical changes without adequate explanations in NY personal injury depositions.
Aug 2, 2013
Mallela Depositions: When New York Courts Compel No-Fault Doctors to Testify
Appellate Term compels a doctor to sit for a Mallela deposition in a NY no-fault case — what fraudulent-incorporation discovery means for medical providers.
Nov 18, 2010
Medical Necessity Evidence Standards in No-Fault Law | Long Island Lawyer | Jason Tenenbaum
Separate Park Slope's 2009 holding from Jason's missing-records theory. Later Elmont authority rejected an automatic medical-record attachment requirement.
Mar 19, 2009
Why a Substitute IME Doctor Is Not Allowed After Note of Issue in New York
NY courts restrict substitute IME doctors after note of issue filing.
Dec 21, 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 discovery 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.
