Key Takeaway
Sharp View denied Maya's summary judgment motion for insufficient mailing proof. The ruling did not award benefits or require certified mail.
This article is part of our ongoing ime issues coverage, with 149 published articles analyzing ime issues 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.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Historical note: Sharp View concerns an insufficient mailing affidavit; the later Gaines decision (2025) likewise required properly noticed IMEs before accepting a coverage defense, without prescribing certified mail or a universal office workflow.
Maya lost its summary judgment motion in Sharp View because its affidavit did not adequately explain how the IME letters were addressed and mailed. The provider won that appeal; it did not receive a final award of benefits from this decision.
Jason’s original note
Sharp View Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v Maya Assur. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51721(U))(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)
“Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that the affidavit submitted by defendant did not sufficiently set forth a standard office practice or procedure that would ensure that the letters scheduling independent medical examinations (IMEs) had been properly addressed and mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ). As a result, defendant failed to demonstrate that the IMEs had been properly scheduled and, thus, that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear at duly scheduled IME”
It seems that Maya gets into trouble on these IME no show cases often.
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.
What the mailing affidavit failed to establish
Sharp View v Maya, decided November 20, 2015, focused on the foundation for mailing. Without sufficient evidence of the standard office practice, the insurer had not shown that the missed examinations were duly scheduled.
The court relied on St. Vincent’s Hospital v Government Employees, which recognizes proof based on personal knowledge of standard office mailing procedures. The relevant issue is what the witness knows about the practice and how the evidence connects that practice to the letters at issue.
Sharp View does not prescribe a three-employee mailing workflow or require certified mail. Nor does it find company-wide training failures. Jason’s observation about Maya’s other cases is preserved in the original note as his contemporary comment, not attributed to the court as a statistical finding.
In Urban Well and Metro 8 the notice and nonattendance evidence was sufficient. An attendance affidavit cannot cure a missing foundation for the notice itself.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory.
- Casas Sosa: sworn affidavits and personal knowledge
- Urban Well and Metro 8: IME and EUO witnesses
- Village Medical: verification and timely denial after missed IMEs
- Harmonic: the Unitrin coverage analysis
- Four 2011 insurer wins with timely-denial proof
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the scheduling letters, claim chronology and motion 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 2,353 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.
Keep Reading
More IME issues Analysis
Simple addition is insufficient
Jodi Jacobs's 2021 mixed appeal: four claims dismissed, one fee balance unresolved, and why the schedule alone did not prove correct code use.
May 22, 2021
NF-3 is the operative document
Unitrin Direct v Beckles: the NF-3, timely IME requests and two missed examinations. Distinguish the request deadline from the examination date.
Mar 22, 2021
Another proof of the no show
Village Medical rejected IME doctors' unexplained recollection and sole reliance on the scheduling vendor. The 2016 opinion sets no affidavit expiration date.
Mar 25, 2016
IME no show run amuck
Court ruling on IME no-shows highlights timing issues with claim denials in no-fault insurance cases, showing the complexity of procedural requirements.
Apr 2, 2014
The failure to specifically deny the lack of appearence at an IMEs proves fatal
Appeals court confirms that failing to specifically deny a patient's IME no-show in opposition papers proves fatal to a medical provider's no-fault insurance claim.
May 16, 2012
New Evidence in Reply: Understanding Motion Practice Rules in New York Courts
Valdan allowed reply documents answering a new IME-address objection. Read the chronology and the limits on making a summary judgment case in reply.
Jun 2, 2019Was 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 ime issues 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.
