Key Takeaway
Village Medical rejected IME doctors' unexplained recollection and sole reliance on the scheduling vendor. The 2016 opinion sets no affidavit expiration date.
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: Village Medical rejected the foundation in its 2016 affidavits; GC Chiropractic (2025), discussed in the 2026 EUO note, accepted different proof on renewal despite a longer interval.
The missing basis for recollection
In Village Medical Supply v Travelers, 2016 NY Slip Op 50339(U), the Appellate Term, First Department, reversed the insurer’s summary judgment and denied its motion. The IME doctors had not explained the basis for recalling, about twelve months later, that the assignor failed to attend.
The court also rejected sole reliance on the scheduling vendor’s recording of the doctors’ third-party statements. Routine recording did not itself establish that those statements were reliable. The ruling concerns the foundation presented, not a deadline for signing an affidavit.
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.
Jason’s March 2016 questions
Village Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2016 NY Slip Op 50339(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2016)
“The affidavits of defendant’s IME doctors lacked probative value, since they failed to state the basis of their recollection, some 12 months later, that the assignor did not appear on the scheduled IME dates”
This is interesting and asks a few questions. First: what is the tempral cut off when the affidavit has to say more than: “I was there and (s)he did not attend tee IME?” Second: I am assuming there has to be a minimal recitation of business practice to prove the no show? The rules with no-shows, both procedurally and substantively keep changing.
No six-month safe harbor or expiration date
Jason asked where the temporal line might fall. The opinion did not draw one. Its account does not support advising that affidavits signed within a few months need little detail, or that an interval beyond six months creates a distinct objection.
The MDJ Medical opinion accepted physician affidavits that explained personal knowledge. Sutphin cites Village Medical while leaving absence triable. In the separate EUO case GC Chiropractic, an attorney’s affirmation was accepted on renewal despite being executed approximately three years later. That later decision is a useful comparison, not a holding that IME affidavits no longer need a foundation.
A practitioner reviewing these records should ask what the witness knew and how the affidavit explains it. The signature date is part of the record; it is not a substitute for that inquiry.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show encyclopedia hub for the case directory and the distinction between notice, attendance and denial evidence.
- Earlier discussion of the quantum of no-show proof
- First Department coverage-defense context
- A different defect: an affidavit dated before the examinations
- Sutphin: mailing established but absence triable
- MDJ Medical: an adequate personal-knowledge showing
- The 2026 discussion of GC Chiropractic’s EUO affirmation
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum.
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 IME no -show – but this was mine so it is blogworthy
Personal injury attorney discusses court ruling on IME no-show affidavits and evidence requirements for New York no-fault insurance cases.
Jun 28, 2015
The affidavits were unshakable
Casas Sosa accepted a sworn affidavit and record-specific IME proof. Read Jason's original note with the distinction between CPLR 2309 and 2106.
Aug 2, 2013
Ime no-show victory
Tri-Mount Acupuncture: the insurer won dismissal with IME notice, nonappearance and denial-mailing evidence. Jason's original affidavit checklist preserved.
Mar 15, 2011
To appeal for the sake to appeal
New York court highlights importance of proper proof of mailing in no-fault insurance denials, showing how inadequate affidavits can undermine insurer defenses.
Mar 25, 2017Was 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.
