Key Takeaway
Court case analysis showing how failed summary judgment motion led to mandatory EBT order for medical provider in no-fault insurance dispute.
This article is part of our ongoing discovery coverage, with 100 published articles analyzing discovery 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.
Jamaica Med. Plaza, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50475(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the alternative, an order compelling plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial and granted the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking a finding, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that plaintiff had established its prima facie case.”
“ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial is granted and the examination shall be held within 60 days of the date of this decision and order, at such time and place to be specified in a written notice by defendant of not less than 10 days, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree upon; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.”
…
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.
“Plaintiff submitted an affirmation by its treating physician which was sufficient to raise triable issues of fact as to the medical necessity of the services rendered (see Alur Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co., 31 Misc 3d 126, 2011 NY Slip Op 50438 ), and as to whether the fees charged were in accordance with the Workers’ Compensation fee schedule. Consequently, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment was properly denied. However, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking an order compelling plaintiff to appear for an EBT should have been granted (see CPLR 3101 ). Defendant’s moving papers established that defendant had served plaintiff with a notice for an EBT, which examination was material and necessary to defendant’s defense.”
And there you have it. An aborted summary judgment motion spurns an EBT of a medical provider.
Related Articles
- Appellate Term holds CPLR 3212(f) relief is inappropriate under three separate circumstances
- A plain disaster: EBT procedural requirements in no-fault cases
- The failure of an assignor to appear for an EBT is not a basis for a 3126 sanction against the assignee
- NY EBT Venue Rules: When Courts Grant Undue Hardship Exceptions for Depositions
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post was published, New York’s Workers’ Compensation fee schedule referenced for no-fault reimbursement rates has undergone multiple amendments, and CPLR discovery procedures may have been modified through court rule changes or legislative updates. Practitioners should verify current fee schedule provisions and examination before trial requirements under the most recent versions of applicable statutes and regulations.
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 2,600 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
Discovery Practice in New York Courts
Discovery is the pre-trial process through which parties exchange information relevant to the dispute. In New York, discovery practice is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions, interrogatories, document demands, and physical examinations. Disputes over the scope of discovery, compliance with demands, and sanctions for noncompliance are frequent in both no-fault and personal injury cases. These articles analyze discovery rules, court decisions on discovery disputes, and strategies for effective discovery practice.
100 published articles in Discovery
Keep Reading
More Discovery Analysis
Nassau Police Ordered to Pay $34,690.50 in FOIL Fees: What Meyer Means After a Crash
The Second Department raised a FOIL fee award against the Nassau County Police Department from $12,000 to $34,690.50. The statute, the math, and the FOIL clock.
Oct 8, 2026
FOIL and the Court System's Memos to Judges: NYCLU v OCA (1st Dept 2026)
On September 29, 2026 the First Department upheld an order to release 22 OCA memos to judges under FOIL. What the ruling holds, and what it leaves open.
Oct 3, 2026
The SIU file is open for discovery and more
New York court rules SIU files discoverable when insurer fails to prove litigation privilege, plus limits on stipulations in no-fault insurance cases.
Jul 16, 2013
An interesting discovery case involving the right to obtain alcohol treatment records
Expert analysis of medical records discovery rights in NY personal injury cases. L.T. v Teva Pharms case study. Call (516) 750-0595 for consultation.
Mar 24, 2010
Waiting to conduct discovery fatal to 3212(f) claim
Court rules plaintiff's 3-year delay in discovery fatal to CPLR 3212(f) motion - inaction constitutes acquiescence to summary judgment timing.
Oct 10, 2018
The errant notice to admit
Court rules improper notice to admit cannot establish prima facie case for no-fault insurance EUO nonappearance, highlighting discovery limits in litigation.
Oct 6, 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 discovery 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.
