Key Takeaway
Court rules improper notice to admit cannot establish prima facie case for no-fault insurance EUO nonappearance, highlighting discovery limits in litigation.
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 168 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 Improper Use of Notices to Admit in No-Fault Litigation
Discovery tools in civil litigation serve specific, limited purposes designed to facilitate fair and efficient resolution of disputes. Among these tools, the notice to admit occupies a unique position, intended to streamline trials by eliminating uncontested factual matters and establishing the authenticity of documents. However, parties sometimes attempt to expand this tool beyond its intended scope, using it to establish ultimate facts or conclusory matters that should be determined through substantive evidence at trial.
The boundaries of proper notice to admit usage become particularly important in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases, where insurance carriers frequently seek to establish coverage defenses through procedural mechanisms rather than trial testimony. These cases often involve disputes about whether insureds or medical providers appeared for Examinations Under Oath (EUOs), with carriers attempting to use discovery devices to prove non-appearance rather than presenting direct evidence through affidavits or testimony.
Understanding the distinction between permissible and impermissible uses of notices to admit is crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants in no-fault litigation. When a notice to admit seeks responses on matters that go to the heart of the controversy, courts will not allow the requesting party to benefit from non-responses, even under circumstances where the opposing party failed to timely object or respond. This protection ensures that critical factual disputes are resolved through proper evidentiary procedures rather than through procedural default.
Case Background
In Metro Health Products, Inc. v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the defendant insurance carrier served a notice to admit on the plaintiff medical provider, seeking admission that the plaintiff failed to appear for scheduled EUOs. When the plaintiff did not timely respond to the notice, State Farm moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, relying solely on the notice to admit to establish the plaintiff’s non-appearances as deemed admissions under CPLR rules governing discovery.
The trial court needed to determine whether a notice to admit seeking admission of EUO non-appearance was a proper use of this discovery tool, or whether such a request improperly sought admission of ultimate facts going to the heart of the case. This issue had significant implications for no-fault insurance litigation practice, as it would determine whether carriers could establish critical defenses through procedural default rather than substantive proof.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis
Metro Health Prods., Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51451(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)
“On March 19, 2012, after plaintiff failed to respond to the notice to admit, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of plaintiff’s nonappearances at the duly scheduled EUOs, relying solely upon its notice to admit to establish plaintiff’s nonappearances”
“The purpose of a notice to admit is only to eliminate from the issues in litigation matters which will not be in dispute at trial. It is not intended to cover ultimate conclusions, which can only be made after a full and complete trial” (DeSilva v Rosenberg, 236 AD2d 508, 508 ; see Williams v City of New York, 125 AD3d 767 ; Priceless Custom Homes, Inc. v O’Neill, 104 AD3d 664 ; Bajaj v General Assur., 18 Misc 3d 25, 27 ). Contrary to defendant’s assertion, its notice to admit went to the heart of the controversy (see Priceless Custom Homes, Inc., 104 AD3d at 664-665; Nacherlilla v Prospect Park Alliance, Inc., 88 AD3d 770 ). Consequently, plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the notice to admit should not be deemed an admission of the matters stated therein, since the admissions sought by defendant were improper”
You have to wonder whether the Notice to Admit would still work in the Second Department to make a prima facie case? I am guessing not. Yet, if a medical provider puts into evidence a denial (as an admission of receipt) and seeks admission of the corresponding bill to the extent it links up to the denial, that would satisfy a prima facie case, in my opinion.
Legal Significance
The Appellate Term’s decision establishes clear boundaries for the permissible scope of notices to admit in New York civil litigation. By holding that requests seeking admission of EUO non-appearance go to the heart of the controversy and therefore constitute improper uses of this discovery device, the court reinforced fundamental principles about how discovery tools should function. Notices to admit are intended only to eliminate peripheral matters from dispute, not to establish the central facts upon which a case turns.
This ruling protects parties from having critical factual disputes resolved through procedural default rather than substantive adjudication. In the no-fault insurance context, whether a party appeared for an EUO directly determines coverage liability - it is the ultimate fact in many coverage disputes. Allowing such ultimate facts to be established through deemed admissions would undermine the adversarial process and potentially deny parties their right to have disputed facts determined through proper evidentiary procedures.
The decision also clarifies that even when a party fails to timely respond to a notice to admit, courts retain discretion to refuse to treat the matters as admitted when the requests were improper from the outset. This principle prevents parties from using procedural mechanisms to obtain unfair tactical advantages and ensures that discovery tools are used for their intended purposes rather than as substitutes for substantive proof.
Practical Implications
For insurance carriers defending no-fault claims, this decision forecloses the use of notices to admit as a primary method for establishing EUO non-appearance defenses. Carriers must instead rely on traditional proof methods including affidavits from examining physicians, testimony from scheduling personnel, and documentation of office practices and procedures for recording no-shows. While notices to admit may still serve useful purposes in establishing peripheral matters like the authenticity of documents or uncontested background facts, they cannot replace substantive evidence on dispositive issues.
Medical providers and plaintiffs benefit from the protection this ruling provides against improper discovery tactics. Even when facing time pressures or administrative challenges that might cause delayed responses to discovery requests, parties need not fear that their failure to respond to an improper notice to admit will result in deemed admissions on critical matters. However, parties should still respond promptly to all discovery requests and object to improper notices to avoid unnecessary motion practice and preserve all available defenses.
Related Articles
- Final order of preclusion became automatic – no need to move for one
- The Fourth Department discusses what constitutes a prima facie case
- Carothers v. Geico: The No-Fault Business Records Showdown
- Appellate Term holds CPLR 3212(f) relief is inappropriate under three separate circumstances
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
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 2,353 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.
168 published articles in Discovery
Keep Reading
More Discovery Analysis
Another Discovery
Appellate Term ruling on discovery objections shows courts won't disturb trial court discretion when defendants fail to timely object within CPLR's 20-day period.
May 22, 2021
Deposition rulings
New York appellate court clarifies that deposition rulings cannot be appealed as of right, even when made through formal motion practice rather than during examination.
Sep 25, 2020
A civil court upholds Domotor, but applies it in a strange fashion
Understanding how NY courts apply the Domotor case in no-fault insurance disputes. Long Island and NYC personal injury attorney explains the legal implications.
Feb 2, 2010
Post note of issue discovery granted
Court allows post-note of issue discovery without vacating the note, clarifying when additional discovery is appropriate after filing the note of issue.
Apr 6, 2017
A motion for summary judgment is denied pending disclosure
New York court denies summary judgment in no-fault case where plaintiff timely requested but didn't receive peer review reports and medical documentation from defendant insurer.
Jan 6, 2014
Requestee pays for discovery
New York court rules on discovery costs burden in litigation - requestee pays first, with limited cost-shifting options available.
Feb 29, 2012Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is discovery in New York civil litigation?
Discovery is the pre-trial phase where parties exchange relevant information and evidence. Under CPLR Article 31, discovery methods include depositions (oral questioning under oath), interrogatories (written questions), document demands, requests for admission, and physical or mental examinations. Discovery in New York is governed by the principle of full disclosure of all relevant, non-privileged information — but courts can issue protective orders to limit discovery that is overly broad or burdensome.
What happens if a party fails to comply with discovery requests?
Under CPLR 3126, a court can impose penalties for failure to comply with discovery, including preclusion of evidence, striking of pleadings, or even dismissal of the action or entry of a default judgment. Before seeking sanctions, the requesting party typically must demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute and may need to file a motion to compel disclosure under CPLR 3124.
What are interrogatories and how are they used in New York litigation?
Interrogatories are written questions served on the opposing party that must be answered under oath within a specified timeframe. Under CPLR 3130, interrogatories in New York are limited — a party may serve a maximum of 25 interrogatories, including subparts, without court permission. Interrogatories are useful for obtaining basic factual information such as witness names, insurance details, and factual contentions. Objections must be specific and timely or they may be waived.
What is a bill of particulars in New York personal injury cases?
A bill of particulars under CPLR 3043 and 3044 provides the defendant with the specific details of the plaintiff's claims — including the injuries sustained, the theory of liability, and the damages sought. In personal injury cases, it must specify each injury, the body parts affected, and the nature of the damages claimed. An amended or supplemental bill may be served to include new injuries or updated information discovered during the course of litigation.
What does 'prima facie case' mean in no-fault litigation?
In no-fault litigation, the provider or claimant bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case by submitting proof of the claim — including evidence that the services were provided, the claim was timely submitted, and the amount billed is correct. Once the prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the insurer to demonstrate a valid defense, such as medical necessity denial, lack of coverage, or failure to appear for an EUO or IME.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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.
