3101(d) from the Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals clarifies CPLR 3101(d) expert witness disclosure requirements, timing objections, and trial court discretion in Rivera v Montefiore Medical Center.
3101(d) from the Court of Appeals — Read More →28 articles published in October 2016
The articles below were published in October 2016 by Attorney Jason Tenenbaum and the legal team at his Long Island law office. Each article provides detailed analysis of real court decisions, statutory developments, and procedural issues in New York personal injury, no-fault insurance, and employment law.
Attorney Tenenbaum has maintained this legal blog since 2008, creating one of the most comprehensive public archives of New York insurance and personal injury case law analysis available online. Every article draws on his firsthand experience litigating cases in Nassau County District Court, Suffolk County courts, New York City Civil Court, and the Appellate Term. Unlike generic legal content, these articles cite specific case holdings, analyze judicial reasoning, and identify practical takeaways for attorneys and claimants navigating New York's complex legal landscape.
Whether you are an attorney researching a procedural question, an insurance professional evaluating a claim, or an individual trying to understand your legal rights after an accident or workplace dispute, this archive offers substantive legal analysis grounded in real New York courtroom experience. For case-specific legal advice, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Court of Appeals clarifies CPLR 3101(d) expert witness disclosure requirements, timing objections, and trial court discretion in Rivera v Montefiore Medical Center.
3101(d) from the Court of Appeals — Read More →J.K.M. Med. Care v Interboro Insurance case analysis: provider's satisfaction case involving successive motions and judgment entry timing in no-fault benefits dispute.
Punted satisfaction case — Read More →New York court rules judgment in declaratory action bars assignee recovery without direct order against assignor in no-fault insurance case.
Judgment in declaratory judgment action does not need to rendered against Assignor to be effective — Read More →Frye hearing required when experts present conflicting literature on novel medical theories. Court analysis of prenatal neuroblastoma detection standards.
A Frye hearing is required where two sides have opposing literature on a contested novel service — Read More →Court dismisses personal injury case where plaintiff failed to prove causation between car accident and cervical injuries, distinguishing new trauma from preexisting neck condition.
Causation not proved — Read More →Easy Care Acupuncture v MVAIC case explores policy exhaustion defenses and fee schedule reductions in New York no-fault insurance acupuncture claims disputes.
Policy exhaustion and fee schedule concerns — Read More →Appellate Term reinforces that failing to appear for EUO is unconditional bar to coverage, rejecting Civil Court's attempt to allow second chance for medical provider.
EUO no show is unconditional — Read More →Court rejects insurance defense motion due to improper notarization where notary signature preceded the affiant's signature, highlighting critical procedural requirements.
Putting the cart before the horse? — Read More →Court ruling establishes that a claims representative's affidavit explaining fee calculations using relative values and conversion factors creates sufficient prima facie evidence.
Claims representative’s attestation is sufficient to make a prima facie showing — Read More →Multiple 2016 New York appellate cases highlight ongoing disputes over insurance companies' claims of receiving additional verification requests in no-fault insurance disputes.
More verification non receipt issues — Read More →Maya Assurance Company loses three no-show IME cases in 2016, highlighting common defenses used by healthcare providers in no-fault insurance disputes.
Maya again loses their no show cases — Read More →Court affirms no coverage where auto leasing company's employee affidavit proved no policy existed for the vehicle on accident date, establishing prima facie defense.
Lack of coverage: there was no lease for the vehicle — Read More →Court ruling clarifies that insurance companies can use apartment numbers in IME scheduling letters even if not on original claim forms, with proper affidavit evidence.
IME scheduling letters: inclusion of an apartment number — Read More →First Department appeal challenging rocket docket preclusion in no-fault case, examining law office failure standards and interest of justice review procedures.
Rocket docket at the First Department — Read More →Court rejects insurance carrier's attempt to overturn no-fault arbitration award after failing to include required reimbursement language in IME notices.
IME no show not upheld — Read More →Global Liberty Ins. Co. v W. Joseph Gorum case analysis: court grants default but denies summary judgment on medical necessity peer review signature issues.
Default granted but summary judgment motion denied — Read More →New York's brutal 20-day rule for staying arbitration when there's no coverage - Allstate loses SUM coverage dispute after missing deadline by months
Snooze and lose rule – Tremendous consequences — Read More →Liberty Chiropractic v 21st Century Insurance case examining fee schedule defenses and 8-unit limitations under NY no-fault law, authentication requirements.
Fee Schedule and 8 unit issue — Read More →Insurance company loses summary judgment motion for failing to provide proper proof of plaintiff's non-appearance at examination under oath hearing.
EUO loss (again) — Read More →Court finds IME requests reasonable despite patient's prior IME attendance, ruling no-shows bar no-fault benefits regardless of reasonableness objections.
IME no show – reasonableness not enterained — Read More →A no-fault insurance case where inadequate affidavits led to defeat, highlighting the importance of learning from legal mistakes and improving documentation strategies.
The verifications were not mailed — Read More →Court rules partial response to verification requests insufficient, requiring complete verification before claim payment or denial under NY no-fault law.
Verification non-receipt – Partial response insufficient — Read More →Court rules on non-receipt defense in no-fault insurance case where defendant successfully proved they never received claim form, highlighting e-filing benefits.
Non-receipt defense prevails — Read More →NY court rules EUO scheduling letter dates need not be included in denial forms. Case law analysis on no-fault insurance EUO notice requirements.
The dates of the EUO's do not need to be placed in the letters — Read More →New York court rules that DME not included in fee schedules can still be compensable under 11 NYCRR 68.5, overturning insurance carrier arguments.
The DME equivalent of Robert Physical Therapy plays out — Read More →Jason Tenenbaum analyzes a no-fault insurance case heading to appeal, predicting reversal due to insurer's procedural failures in EUO scheduling and discovery tactics.
What’s the over under on this appeal scheduled for the December term — Read More →Discovery of false statements about prior injuries after case filing can warrant additional examinations under oath, potentially leading to coverage disclaimer.
False statement about prior injuries warrants further discovery — Read More →Court vacates master arbitration award for failing to consider IME report despite electronic signature, highlighting CPLR 2106 flexibility in no-fault cases.
Another arbitrator and master arbitrator get shamed for not following the law — Read More →The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum publishes legal analysis on a regular basis covering developments in New York personal injury litigation, no-fault insurance disputes, employment discrimination, and related practice areas. Attorney Tenenbaum started writing about New York case law in 2008, and the blog has grown into a library of over 2,353 articles analyzing court decisions from the Appellate Term, Appellate Division, and Court of Appeals.
Topics frequently covered include the prima facie case standard in no-fault actions, the 30-day preclusion rule under Insurance Regulation 192, IME and EUO no-show defenses, summary judgment practice under CPLR 3212, default judgment standards, verification and claims submission procedures, and the serious injury threshold under Insurance Law Section 5102(d). Employment law articles address wrongful termination, workplace discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, wage and hour violations, and employer retaliation claims.
Each article is written for a professional audience but remains accessible to non-lawyers seeking to understand how New York courts handle specific legal issues. The firm serves clients across Long Island, including Nassau County, Suffolk County, and the five boroughs of New York City. If you have a legal question about any topic covered in these articles, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, confidential consultation.
New York's civil court system is one of the most complex in the nation, with multiple overlapping jurisdictions that affect how personal injury, no-fault insurance, and employment cases are litigated. The New York City Civil Court handles claims up to $25,000 in the five boroughs, while the District Courts in Nassau and Suffolk Counties handle similar matters on Long Island. For claims exceeding $25,000, the Supreme Court serves as the primary trial court with unlimited monetary jurisdiction. Despite its name, the Supreme Court is not the highest court in New York — that distinction belongs to the Court of Appeals, which sits in Albany and decides approximately 200 cases per year.
Appeals from Civil Court and District Court decisions go to the Appellate Term, which is divided into departments corresponding to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Term for the Second Department — which covers Nassau County, Suffolk County, Kings County (Brooklyn), Queens County, and Richmond County (Staten Island) — hears hundreds of no-fault insurance appeals each year and has developed a substantial body of case law on topics including timely denial, verification procedures, proof of mailing, fee schedule disputes, and medical necessity standards. The Appellate Division, Second Department, hears appeals from Supreme Court and from the Appellate Term, and its decisions are binding on all lower courts within its jurisdiction.
Understanding where your case falls within this system is critical. A no-fault insurance dispute involving a $3,000 medical bill will follow a very different procedural path than a $500,000 personal injury claim arising from the same automobile accident. The former is typically resolved through mandatory arbitration before the American Arbitration Association under Insurance Department Regulation 68, while the latter proceeds through Supreme Court with full discovery, independent medical examinations under CPLR 3121, depositions, and potentially a jury trial. Attorney Tenenbaum has practiced extensively in all of these venues and understands the strategic considerations unique to each.
Several statutes and regulations appear frequently in the articles archived on this page. Insurance Law Article 51 establishes New York's no-fault insurance framework, requiring every motor vehicle policy to include personal injury protection benefits covering medical expenses, lost earnings (up to $2,000 per month), and other basic economic loss up to $50,000 per person. 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (Insurance Regulation 192) imposes a 30-day deadline on insurers to pay or deny no-fault claims after receiving proof of claim and all demanded verification, and the failure to timely deny results in preclusion of most coverage defenses.
In personal injury litigation, Insurance Law Section 5102(d) defines the categories of "serious injury" that a plaintiff must establish before recovering non-economic damages in a motor vehicle accident case. The nine categories — death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, fracture, loss of a fetus, permanent loss of use, permanent consequential limitation, significant limitation of use, and the 90/180-day category — each have specific evidentiary requirements that have been refined through decades of appellate decisions. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has litigated serious injury threshold motions in hundreds of cases and regularly writes about new developments in this area.
Employment claims in New York implicate both state and federal statutes. The New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law Section 296) prohibits employment discrimination based on age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, sex, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics, familial status, marital status, and domestic violence victim status. The New York City Human Rights Law provides even broader protections and applies a more liberal standard. At the federal level, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act provide additional protections but are subject to administrative exhaustion requirements through the EEOC.
Workers' compensation cases in New York are governed by the Workers' Compensation Law and administered by the Workers' Compensation Board. Injured workers are entitled to medical treatment, lost wage benefits (typically two-thirds of the average weekly wage, subject to a statutory maximum), and permanency awards for lasting disabilities. Third-party claims — such as personal injury lawsuits against property owners or general contractors under Labor Law Sections 200, 240, and 241 — often run parallel to workers' compensation proceedings and involve complex lien and subrogation issues that require experienced legal counsel to navigate properly.
The articles in this archive analyze real decisions from courts across New York State, with a particular focus on the Appellate Term and Appellate Division decisions that establish binding precedent for trial courts on Long Island and in New York City. Whether you are an attorney preparing a motion, an insurance professional evaluating a claim, or an individual trying to understand your rights, these articles provide the detailed legal analysis that generic legal websites simply cannot offer. For personalized advice about your specific situation, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum at (516) 750-0595.
The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. serves clients from its office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. The firm represents individuals and businesses throughout Long Island — including the towns of Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton, Huntington, and Oyster Bay in Suffolk County, and the cities and villages of Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa, and Levittown in Nassau County. The firm also handles cases in all five boroughs of New York City: Queens, Brooklyn (Kings County), Manhattan (New York County), the Bronx, and Staten Island (Richmond County). Court appearances are regularly made at Nassau County Supreme Court in Mineola, Suffolk County Supreme Court in Riverhead, the Nassau County District Court, the Suffolk County District Court, and the New York City Civil Court throughout the five boroughs.
Injured? Don't Wait.
Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today
No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.