Key Takeaway
Provek corrected an employment-date error and won summary judgment on renewal. See the 2016 ruling and why a documented mistake matters.
This article is part of our ongoing renew and reargue coverage, with 14 published articles analyzing renew and reargue 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
The insurer’s first affidavit in Provek gave the mailing clerk the wrong employment date. The insurer explained the error, sought renewal promptly and ultimately won dismissal. The explanation and corrected proof mattered.
Historical note: Provek accepted a particular correction; Joyous JD Ltd v Yolanda Mgt. shows that corrected papers can still fail when the earlier omission lacks reasonable justification.
What changed on renewal
Provek Plus, Inc. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 51 Misc 3d 152(A) (App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016), concerns a 2016 decision, not a 2015 opinion. The insurer’s initial summary-judgment motion and its renewal motion were unopposed. Both were denied below.
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.
On appeal, the court accepted the explanation for the employment-date error and granted renewal. It also granted the insurer summary judgment. The corrected submissions established timely verification requests and denials; the affirmed peer review supplied a factual basis and medical rationale that the provider had not rebutted.
How far the correction goes
A wrong date calls for an explanation of how it got there. Provek does not give every mistaken affidavit a second chance. Joyous, cited above, reached a different result when the omission was described only as inadvertent or mistaken. Retain the original papers and explain the specific error rather than offering a label for it.
Jason’s original comment
Jason’s original reaction follows, including its spelling. The decision accepted the explanation on this record; an honest mistake does not guarantee renewal.
That does happen every so often. A name, date or other information inadvertantly lands in an affidavit. Parties try to jump on the defect and state that the world is over due to that mistake. The Court here gave the carrier a second chance, and rightfully so. Nobody is perfect.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
- CPLR 2221: governing rule and related decisions
- Ashraf Ashour: replacing companion-case papers
- Ferrara: correcting the form of medical proof
- Dookhie: answering an opponent’s new reply argument
- Abrams: diligence after a missing witness was located
- Terio: late reargument while an appeal was pending
For review of a particular motion record or an attorney referral, 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 Renew and reargue Analysis
Here is a procedural one for you
Dookhie allowed the plaintiff to answer defendants' new reply argument on renewal. Read the 2020 decision and the limits of that procedural ruling.
Feb 12, 2020
When is reargument granted?
Budoff treated reconsideration on the merits as a grant of reargument, but the plaintiff still lost. Compare appealability, timing and Caputo in 2025.
Aug 23, 2018
Renewal granted and Plaintiff loses.
Ashraf Ashour allowed renewal after companion-case papers were filed by mistake. The corrected proof led to dismissal of the no-fault claims.
Mar 20, 2012
Plaintiff given a second chance to correct the form of his papers
Ferrara allowed corrected medical proof on renewal in 2010. Compare the former affirmation rule with current CPLR 2106 and later renewal decisions.
Aug 19, 2010
Issues involving the granting of leave to renew when an improper affirmation instead of an affidavit is presented
Explore NY appellate decisions on granting leave to renew when improper affirmations instead of affidavits are used in legal motions and procedural requirements.
Feb 10, 2010
Renewal Under Certain Circumstances May Be Granted to Correct an Improper Affirmation: A Comprehensive Guide to CPLR 2106 Requirements
Arkin v Resnick allowed a discretionary affirmation correction on renewal. Learn the limits of CPLR 2221 and distinguish current affirmation form from evidence.
Dec 5, 2009Was 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 renew and reargue 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.
