Key Takeaway
MB Advanced Equipment: conflicting IME-location affidavits raised a factual issue. The court did not find fraud, perjury or insurance bad faith.
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: MB Advanced Equipment (2016) left conflicting location evidence unresolved; its motion ruling does not establish a bad-faith or fraud claim.
Conflicting location affidavits defeated the insurer’s motion in MB Advanced Equipment v New York Central Mutual. The June 3, 2016 Appellate Term, Second Department decision left a factual issue for trial. It did not find fraud, perjury or insurance bad faith.
What the location conflict left for trial
The insurer initially submitted sufficient examiner affidavits to establish nonattendance. In opposition, the provider produced earlier affidavits in which the same doctor and chiropractor placed themselves somewhere other than the locations in the IME notices. Counsel’s reply attributed the discrepancy to typographical errors, but counsel had not shown personal knowledge sufficient to resolve their whereabouts as a matter of law.
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.
The court affirmed denial of summary judgment and left the existing CPLR 3212(g) findings in place. It did not decide which location account was true. Compare the appointment dates and notice addresses against what each witness actually swore. A conflict can require a trial without proving dishonesty. Jason’s forceful comment below is his contemporaneous reaction, not a bad-faith holding or a conclusion that anyone committed fraud.
Jason’s original note
Jason’s original 2016 reaction follows. It is conditional commentary, not a judicial finding of bad faith or fraud:
This is terrific. Really? Heaven forbid this is true; this would be the predicate of a bad faith action.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory, then compare these related records:
- Mind & Body: the address objection first raised on appeal
- T & J: sworn statements without demonstrated personal knowledge
- Compas: separate IME and fee-schedule proof problems
- Three 2015 decisions on inadequate IME and EUO proof
- Delta Diagnostic: why both summary-judgment requests failed
- SIGNET reports and the problem of proving actual nonattendance
- Utica: the unexplained basis of a two-year recollection
For review of a particular claim, our no-fault defense practice can assess the notices, denials and motion papers. Contact the office to discuss the file. For broader background, see 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
Article 75 lay-up
First Department grants Global Liberty’s Article 75 petition in Top Q., applying IME no-show precedent. Jason’s 2019 note records his reaction to the appeal.
Sep 4, 2019
Ime no show loses on lack of personal knowledge allegatiob
Sutphin v Hereford: mailing was established, but IME nonappearance remained disputed. The complaint was reinstated and neither side received summary judgment.
May 20, 2016
IME and EUO issues under Unitrin
Court ruling on IME no-show denials under Unitrin precedent - insurer's right to retroactively deny claims when assignor fails to appear for scheduled examination
Oct 28, 2014
EUO of a medical provider – untimely.
New York court rules that insurance company's EUO request for medical provider was untimely, failing to comply with 15-day requirement under no-fault regulations.
Feb 9, 2013Was 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.
