Key Takeaway
Court vacates master arbitration award for failing to consider IME report despite electronic signature, highlighting CPLR 2106 flexibility in no-fault cases.
This article is part of our ongoing 2106 and 2309 coverage, with 31 published articles analyzing 2106 and 2309 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.
Global Liberty Ins. Co. v. Logic Chiropractic, P.C., (Sup. Bronx Co. 2016) Index #: 23560/2016E
I will say this again: Norman Dach’s passing was a bad day for the master arbitration program at AAA. The master arbitration system was created to correct legal errors that arbitrators make. Here is another rubber stamp that I must put on the egregious level.
For those following, the AAA case # is 411510086581. Again, these Article 75 orders do not get sent to the appropriate parties like the master arbitration awards so nobody in the system is aware when AAA gets it wrong.
Here is the text of the order:
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.
Global Liberty Insurance Co.’s petition to vacate the award of the master arbitrator pursuant to CPLR 7511 is granted, as the petitioner established that the decision of the master arbitrator, affirming the lower arbitrator, was arbitrary because it failed to consider the independent medical examination report of chiropractor Dr. Areil Goldin (see In re Petrofsky , 54 N.Y.2d 207 ). As noted by the petitioner, the report should have been considered even though it was signed electronically and not notarized, because strict conformity with CPLR 2106 is not required under the no-fault regulations (Auto One Ins. Co. v. Hillside Chiropractic, P.C., 126 A.D.3d 423 ; 11NYCRR65-4.5 ). Contrary to respondent’s contentions, this Court finds Auto One Ins. Co. v. Hillside Chiropractic, P. C., to be on point and controlling. The master arbitration award dated May 2, 2016 is hereby vacated, the matter is remanded for a new arbitration hearing before a different arbitrator, and the petitioner is entitled to costs and disbursements, including petitioner’s $325 master arbitration fee.
This Constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court
Related Articles
- The CPLR 2106 Trap: Why Medical Practice Owners Must Avoid This Critical Procedural Error
- CPLR 2309 Compliance: Navigating Notarization Requirements in New York Litigation
- 2106 again…
- Renewal Under Certain Circumstances May Be Granted to Correct an Improper Affirmation: A Comprehensive Guide to CPLR 2106 Requirements
Legal Update (February 2026): The procedural requirements for independent medical examination reports under CPLR 2106 and the no-fault regulations cited in this 2016 decision may have been subject to regulatory amendments or judicial clarifications in the intervening years. Additionally, AAA’s master arbitration procedures and documentation requirements referenced in this case may have undergone modifications since 2016. Practitioners should verify current provisions under 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent case law interpreting CPLR 2106 compliance standards in no-fault arbitrations.
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.
About This Topic
CPLR 2106 and 2309: Affirmation & Oath Requirements
CPLR 2106 governs who may submit an affirmation in lieu of an affidavit in New York courts, while CPLR 2309 addresses the requirements for oaths, affidavits, and the certification of out-of-state documents. These seemingly technical provisions have significant practical impact — an improperly executed affirmation or affidavit can render an entire summary judgment motion defective. These articles analyze the formal requirements, common defects, and court decisions that practitioners must navigate when preparing sworn statements.
31 published articles in 2106 and 2309
Keep Reading
More 2106 and 2309 Analysis
CPLR 2309 Certificate of Conformity: First Department Excuses the Defect Again
Donsimoni treated a missing conformity certificate as curable and rejected summary judgment. Read the actual ruling and the current affirmation alternative.
Oct 10, 2017
2309 issue
American Casualty: a missing conformity certificate did not exclude the president's affidavit or defeat the negligence pleading.
Mar 25, 2017
Understanding CPLR 2106 Expert Report Requirements: Critical Analysis for Long Island Attorneys
Quality Psychological: the former psychologist-affirmation restriction, deficient oath attestation, and why both summary judgment motions failed.
Jan 18, 2013
The trap called 2106
High Quality Medical applied the old CPLR 2106 rule, but also found an inadequate IME rebuttal. Learn what changed and why the evidence still matters.
Nov 14, 2010
The Failure to Place Evidence in Proper Form Cannot Be Cured in a Supplemental Opposition
McMullin v Walker: defective medical reports, an improper surreply correction, and why CPLR 2214(c) does not ban every supplemental submission.
Dec 20, 2009
Expert Qualifications and CPLR 2106 Compliance in NY Medical Malpractice Cases
Lopez accepted an orthopedist's opinion in a podiatry case and found a licensure objection unpreserved. Expert qualifications and current CPLR 2106.
Nov 11, 2015Was 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 2106 and 2309 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.
