Key Takeaway
Second Department rules unsigned EBT transcript inadmissible under CPLR 3116(a), but decision conflicts with prior party deposition precedent in New York.
This article is part of our ongoing deposition transcripts coverage, with 187 published articles analyzing deposition transcripts 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 Appellate Division’s Ruling on EBT Transcript Admissibility
Marmer v IF USA Express, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 04151 (2d Dept. 2010)
Key Takeaway
The Second Department excluded an unsigned deposition transcript from a summary judgment motion because the defendants failed to show it was mailed to the plaintiff for review under CPLR 3116(a) — but the ruling conflicts with prior precedent allowing party depositions as admissions regardless of CPLR 3116 compliance.
The court held:
“Further, the unsigned deposition transcript of the plaintiff, which the defendants submitted in support of their motion, did not constitute admissible evidence in light of the defendants’ failure to demonstrate that the transcript was forwarded to the plaintiff for her review pursuant to CPLR 3116(a) (see Martinez v 123-16 Liberty Ave. Realty Corp., 47 AD3d 901; McDonald v Mauss, 38 AD3d 727; Pina v Flik Intl. Corp., 25 AD3d 772; Santos v Intown Assoc., 17 AD3d 564).”
Why This Decision Is Problematic
This decision is wrong for a few reasons.
First, the cases that the Appellate Division cites involve non-party depositions. The procedural safeguards of CPLR 3116(a) serve a different purpose for non-party witnesses than for parties to the litigation.
Second, the law as it relates to party depositions, as the Second Department previously held in R.M. Newell Co., Inc. v. Rice, 236 AD2d 843 (2d Dept. 1997), states the following:
“The court properly considered Richard Newell’s deposition in support of defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The transcripts were certified as accurate by the court reporter, who sent them to the witness for his review and signature. Thus, pursuant to CPLR 3116(a), the deposition is usable as though signed.”
The Critical Distinction: Admissions vs. Depositions
The Newell court went further, making a critical point about party admissions:
“In any event, any statutory proscription against the use of a transcript as a ‘deposition’ would not preclude its use as an admission of plaintiff’s controlling principal. CPLR 3212(b) states that ‘written admissions’ may be submitted on a summary judgment motion.”
“Further, rules of evidence provide for admissibility of admissions of an opposing party regardless of whether they are in the form of a deposition. Thus, irrespective of whether it qualified as a ‘deposition’ under CPLR 3116, the transcript constituted proof in admissible form” (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
Unanswered Questions for New York Practitioners
Can an admission not be used against a plaintiff on a summary judgment motion due to the failure to comply with CPLR 3116? Has this rule now changed? Does this make sense?
These questions have significant implications for personal injury cases throughout Long Island and New York City. If the Marmer ruling stands without reconciliation with Newell, practitioners handling no-fault insurance defense and other civil litigation must carefully ensure CPLR 3116(a) compliance even for party depositions — despite the strong argument that a party’s own sworn testimony constitutes an admission usable under CPLR 3212(b) regardless of transcript formalities.
Related Articles
- Understanding procedural defects in New York no-fault insurance cases
- How form defects can be corrected in reply papers
- Common procedural failures in insurance defense practice
- Additional examples of defective denials and procedural issues
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post was published, the Civil Practice Law and Rules provisions governing deposition transcripts and their admissibility may have been amended through legislative action or further clarified by subsequent appellate decisions. Practitioners should verify current CPLR 3116 and 3117 requirements regarding transcript certification, mailing procedures, and admissibility standards before relying on the procedural analysis discussed in this post.
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 Deposition transcripts Analysis
How to Talk to a Judge in New York: What to Say, What to Avoid, and How to Present Yourself
Practical guide on how to talk to a judge in New York courts. Proper forms of address, courtroom behavior, and tips from Long Island attorney Jason Tenenbaum. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 24, 2026CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
NY CPLR 2106 amendment eliminates notarized affidavits and certificates of conformity. Learn how this changes litigation practice. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 18, 2026The fifth time 2106 was invoked
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum discusses his fifth successful challenge using CPLR 2106, preventing improper affirmations by corporate principals in litigation.
Nov 27, 2010Can a Declaration of Non-Coverage that Arises from a Co-Defendant's Default be Considered Collateral Estoppel Against the Appearing and Answering Defendant?
Learn about collateral estoppel and privity in NY no-fault insurance cases. Expert analysis of State Farm v. Frias for Long Island & NYC residents facing insurance disputes.
Nov 1, 2009Certificate of conformity waived
Court rules on certificate of conformity requirements for affidavits in default judgment motions, finding waiver of CPLR 2309(a) defects is permissible.
Nov 20, 2014Court has discretion to overlook absence of pleadings
New York courts have discretion to overlook missing pleadings in summary judgment motions when the record is sufficiently complete, per Washington Realty case.
Apr 30, 2013Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
4 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What did the court rule about the unsigned EBT transcript in Marmer v IF USA Express?
The Second Department ruled that the unsigned deposition transcript was inadmissible because the defendants failed to demonstrate that it was forwarded to the plaintiff for review pursuant to CPLR 3116(a).
Can an unsigned deposition transcript be used on a summary judgment motion in New York?
It depends on whether it is a party or non-party deposition. For non-party depositions, CPLR 3116(a) mailing requirements are strictly enforced. For party depositions, prior Second Department precedent in R.M. Newell suggests the transcript may still be usable as a written admission under CPLR 3212(b).
What is CPLR 3116(a) and how does it affect deposition transcripts?
CPLR 3116(a) governs the signing and certification of deposition transcripts in New York. It requires that transcripts be forwarded to the deponent for review and signature, and failure to comply can render the transcript inadmissible as evidence.
How does this ruling affect personal injury litigation on Long Island and in New York City?
This decision creates uncertainty about whether party deposition transcripts can be excluded on purely procedural grounds, potentially affecting summary judgment practice in personal injury cases across Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City courts.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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 deposition transcripts 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.