Key Takeaway
Renelique v Park: an unexplained NF-3 address mismatch and no proof of attorney representation defeated the insurer's IME no-show motion.
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 Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v Park Insurance Co., the IME notice address differed from the address on the NF-3. Copies went to an attorney, but the record did not establish that the attorney represented the assignor. On May 25, 2018, the Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed denial of the insurer’s summary-judgment motion.
Historical note: This 2018 ruling left the insurer without summary judgment; compare Colin (2020) for a later record in which the IME notice address matched both claim forms.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Jason Tenenbaum’s original note
Jason’s original 2018 observations follow. The missing-letter inference and proposed “cc:” practice are his commentary, not findings or requirements announced by the court.
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.
Clearly, the carrier was relying on the mailing of the IME letters to the attorney to make up for incorrect mailing of the letters to the Assignor. The carrier failed (it appears) to place the LOR in the moving papers. But even assuming this was done, was the attorney for Assignor lulled into believing that the letters were mailed to the correct address? See Global v. New Century Acupuncture, P.C.? The only way not to be lulled is foe the letter to the attorney to include the address of the Assignor on the “cc:” part of the letter.
What the address discrepancy proved
The carrier’s papers did not establish proper scheduling. The opinion did not find that the patient actually never received the notices or decide where the patient lived. Those facts should not be assumed from the failed motion.
The attorney issue was also a failure of proof. Nothing in the record established representation. The court did not hold that a particular letter-of-representation form is the only permissible evidence, or decide that attorney notice always cures an incorrect patient address.
Jason’s original paragraph discusses a possible missing letter and asks whether counsel could have been misled. Those are his observations, not additional findings by the court. His proposed “cc:” practice should be read in that light.
Colin v Global Liberty offers a useful contrast: notices matched both the NF-2 and NF-3, and there was no assignor affidavit challenging the ZIP code used. The difference is the record supporting the address, not a rule that every mismatch automatically defeats coverage.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show topic hub, then compare these related notes:
- Colin: matching NF-2 and NF-3 addresses
- Faith: insufficient office-mailing proof
- Progressive Health: agreed rescheduling and disputed bill receipt
- Metro 8: the witness’s basis of knowledge
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the appointment letters, relevant claim forms and motion papers.
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 from the First Department
New York Appellate Term ruling clarifies what evidence insurers need to prove patient no-shows at IMEs, emphasizing physician affidavits over office records.
Jul 21, 2015
Amended motion/Admissible Reply papers/Defects in affidavits/delay letter vs. verification requests
Colonia Medical: correcting an IME affidavit did not cure inconsistent proof, and an investigation delay letter did not toll the no-fault claim clock.
Aug 6, 2013
Reasonableness – the new buzz word
Center for Orthopedic Surgery addressed reasonable IME requests and proof of representation. Mailing still matters; Jason's 2011 prediction is kept in context.
Mar 30, 2011
No show and non receipt
Progressive Health: mutual advance rescheduling was not an IME no-show. Separate mailing and nonreceipt affidavits left claim submission for trial.
May 11, 2017Was 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.
