Why Trust This Analysis
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.
In New York no-fault insurance litigation, verification requirements play a crucial role in determining whether an action is premature. Insurance companies frequently argue that healthcare providers failed to properly submit required verification forms, making any subsequent lawsuit premature. However, courts have established that providers can create a presumption of proper mailing and receipt through employee affidavits.
The verification process is particularly important in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases where providers must demonstrate compliance with pre-suit requirements. This often involves proving that verification forms were properly mailed to insurers within required timeframes. When insurers claim non-receipt, the burden shifts to providers to establish proper mailing procedures.
Courts have developed specific standards for what constitutes sufficient proof of mailing. Generic compliance affidavits, sometimes referred to as “Rybak affidavits” after relevant case law, have become a common tool for establishing this presumption. The effectiveness of these affidavits often determines whether a case can proceed or faces dismissal for prematurity.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
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.
Vladenn Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50381(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“However, in opposition to the cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from plaintiff’s employee, which affidavit was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 ). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether this action is premature”
Would this be the famous generic Rybak compliance affidavit?
Key Takeaway
This decision demonstrates that employee affidavits can successfully counter insurer claims of non-receipt of verification forms. Rather than granting summary judgment dismissing the action as premature, the court found sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact. This approach provides healthcare providers with a viable defense against prematurity arguments, though the specific content and format of compliance affidavits remains crucial for success.
Related Articles
- Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- IME No Show: Understanding Confusing Court Interpretations of Duplicate Mailing Requirements
- IME Notification Requirements in New York No-Fault Cases: Address Matching Rules
- Triable issue of fact as to non-appearance?
- 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.
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
IME no-show substantiated
Court reverses order in IME no-show case, establishing key precedent for no-fault insurance claims when proper notice procedures are followed and examinations missed.
Jun 18, 2012
Triable issue of fact as to non-appearance?
Learn about EUO and IME non-appearance defenses in New York no-fault insurance cases. Expert analysis of Island Life and Alas Lifespan decisions.
Jul 2, 2019
Affidavit issues once again invade Hertz' motion practice
Alleviation v Hertz denied both sides summary judgment: deficient no-show proof did not establish the provider's separate entitlement to payment.
Mar 30, 2016
IME no-show (First Department)
First Department ruling establishes key standards for proving IME no-shows in no-fault cases, requiring proper notice and competent evidence of nonappearance.
Jul 22, 2014Was 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.
