Sanctioned for good reason?
New York appellate court sanctions law firms $1500 and $500 for failing to notify court of settlement, highlighting repeated violations by The Rybak Firm in no-fault cases.
Sanctioned for good reason? — Read More →20 articles published in October 2015
The articles below were published in October 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.
New York appellate court sanctions law firms $1500 and $500 for failing to notify court of settlement, highlighting repeated violations by The Rybak Firm in no-fault cases.
Sanctioned for good reason? — Read More →Analysis of Cruz v City of New York regarding CPLR 3101 discovery rules, witness testimony, and evidence admission in New York personal injury litigation.
A CPLR 3101 lesson — Read More →New York court ruling clarifies timing requirements for IME requests under no-fault insurance regulations, highlighting tensions between different regulatory provisions.
Unitrin citing that hits upon the Longevity factors — Read More →New York appellate court clarifies evidence standards for proving IME no-shows, requiring personal knowledge or other appropriate means rather than inadequate documentation.
Personal knowledge and other appropriate means — Read More →First Department court excuses plaintiff's failure to enter default judgment within one year in no-fault benefits case, highlighting inconsistent standards across NY departments.
Failure to enter a default excused — Read More →Analysis of CPLR 3217 discontinuance rules including court discretion, attorney fees recovery, and prejudice standards in NY litigation.
Discontinuance (CPLR 3217) — Read More →New York court ruling explores what constitutes "other appropriate means" to prove EUO no-shows beyond personal knowledge, leaving this critical legal standard undefined.
What is "other appropriate means"? — Read More →New Jersey fee schedule prevails in NY no-fault cases for out-of-state services. Appellate Term ruling on geographic fee schedules and post-2013 defense changes.
New Jersey fee schedule prevails — Read More →Court denies plaintiff's motion in no-fault case due to failed verification compliance and assignor's failure to appear for required IMEs and EUOs.
EUO & IME no show — Read More →Court sanctions attorney for filing briefs with false statements about evidence admissibility and sworn testimony in MVAIC no-fault insurance cases.
Sanctions and a very annoyed court — Read More →Court rules that unsigned peer review reports can be properly remedied when identical signed versions are submitted in reply papers without prejudicing the opposing party.
The Reply that introduced a proper reply was itself proper — Read More →Court rules improper notice to admit cannot establish prima facie case for no-fault insurance EUO nonappearance, highlighting discovery limits in litigation.
The errant notice to admit — Read More →Second Department court cites Unitrin precedent in no-fault insurance case, reinforcing that willfulness is not required to prove failure to cooperate in EUO matters.
Unitrin citing in the Second Department — Read More →Court rules medical provider cannot sue assignor who failed to appear at EUO, highlighting limits of assignment-based lawsuits in no-fault insurance cases.
Lawsuit does not stand against assignor who no-showed to EUOs — Read More →New York appellate court reinforces Alrof precedent requiring personal knowledge proof for EUO non-appearance claims in no-fault insurance litigation.
Another Alrof citing — Read More →Court ruling shows unsworn, unsigned letters of medical necessity lack probative value in no-fault insurance disputes, emphasizing proper documentation requirements.
Unsworn letters not enough — Read More →Court ruling establishes that additional verification not produced proves nothing in no-fault insurance claims, addressing verification requests and IME/EUO requirements.
Additional verification not produced is probative of nothing — Read More →Court ruling on no-fault insurance verification requests and EUO scheduling - insurer's timely mailing vs plaintiff's non-receipt and no-show defenses.
EUO no-show and verification non-receipt — Read More →Delta Diagnostic v Infinity Group case shows NY court vacating consent order due to changed Pennsylvania insurance law interpretation affecting retroactive policy rescission burden of proof.
Pennsylvania law — Read More →Long Island court cases analyzing IME scheduling compliance under Insurance Department Regulations, examining when no-show denials fail due to improper timing requirements.
The backtracking of Unitrin — 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.