Key Takeaway
Colin v Global Liberty: IME notices matched the NF-2 and NF-3. A different police-report ZIP code did not defeat the insurer's proof on this record.
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.
The IME notices in Colin v Global Liberty Insurance Co. of N.Y. used the address on both the sworn NF-2 application and the provider’s NF-3 forms. A police report had a ZIP code differing by one digit. On August 28, 2020, the Appellate Term, Second Department, rejected that objection and granted the insurer summary judgment.
Historical note: Colin (2020) resolved this ZIP-code objection on matching claim forms and the opposition actually submitted; it does not make an old NF-2 conclusive in a different address dispute.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Original court excerpt selected in the archive
The original note quoted this passage from the court’s 2020 opinion.
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 record demonstrates conclusively that the address to which the IME scheduling letters had been mailed to plaintiff’s assignor matched the one provided by plaintiff’s assignor on the assignor’s sworn application for no-fault benefits (NF-2) and on plaintiff’s NF-3 forms, all of which were submitted to defendant. To the extent plaintiff contends that defendant was required to also send the IME scheduling letters to the same address but with a zip code which differed by one digit simply because the police report set forth that zip code, that contention lacks merit. Not only did plaintiff’s assignor swear under penalty of perjury that the zip code which defendant used was the correct zip code, plaintiff’s opposition papers did not contain an affidavit from plaintiff’s assignor which asserted that the zip code to which defendant mailed the IME scheduling letters was incorrect.”
A matching address, with no contrary affidavit
The scheduling supervisor’s affidavit supplied mailing proof. The insurer also established nonattendance, and the provider did not challenge the lower court’s finding that the denial forms had been timely mailed. The address issue was one part of that record, not a substitute for the other proof.
Colin does not establish that an NF-2 permanently overrides every other address source. The matching NF-3 forms mattered, as did the absence of an assignor affidavit saying the ZIP code used was wrong. A later address change or conflicting sworn evidence presents a different question.
For the opposite mailing record, read Renelique v Park. There, the notice address differed from the NF-3 and the papers did not establish that the copied attorney represented the assignor. Put the application, bills and appointment letters side by side before treating either decision as the answer to an address dispute.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show topic hub, then compare these related notes:
- Renelique: address mismatch and attorney notice
- Faith: insufficient office-mailing proof
- Progressive Health: agreed rescheduling and disputed bill receipt
- Apollo: proving the mandatory IME provision
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
First Department on Unitrin again
Priority Medical accepted office-practice mailing and personal-knowledge IME affidavits. The insurer won; the opinion imposed no actual-mailer-only rule.
Apr 17, 2015
IME no-show with statement regarding quantum of proof regrding the “no-show”
Learn what proof is needed to establish an IME no-show defense in New York no-fault insurance cases.
Jul 7, 2013
Couldn't get it right the second time around
Central Radiology v MVAIC: insurer-directed IME confirmations did not toll the claim deadline; the provider won summary judgment on that record.
May 23, 2010
Maya again loses their no show cases
Three Maya Assurance decisions reversed insurer summary judgment for inadequate IME-notice mailing proof. Compare the actual findings and related cases.
Oct 27, 2016Was 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.
