Key Takeaway
Master EUO transcript admissibility and CPLR 3212(f) applications in NY no-fault practice. Expert analysis of RLC Medical decision and evidence rules for Long Island and NYC attorneys.
EUO Admissibility and CPLR 3212(f): Critical Evidence Rules for New York No-Fault Practice
In the complex world of New York no-fault insurance litigation, understanding the nuances of evidence admissibility and procedural rules can make the difference between victory and defeat. For practitioners across Long Island, Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx, two interconnected legal concepts—Examination Under Oath (EUO) admissibility and CPLR 3212(f) applications—represent critical tools that every attorney must master.
The RLC Medical Decision: A Dual Lesson in Evidence and Procedure
RLC Med., P.C. v Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 52691(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009)
“Defendant denied Craigg’s $269.60 claim based upon the assignor’s EUO testimony. Since the purported EUO transcript annexed to defendant’s opposition papers is not in admissible form, we decline to consider it. Accordingly, Craigg was entitled to summary judgment upon said claim.”
Question: Why was it not in admissible form? My thought is that Defendant annexed to her papers the condensed EUO that was not certified by the stenographer. Not good.
Same case:
“In opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, defendant established that while facts may exist that are essential to justify denial of the branch of the summary judgment motion seeking to recover upon claims submitted by RLC, defendant was unable to set forth sufficient facts to establish the defense of fraudulent incorporation (see Insurance Department Regulations § 65-3.16 ; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 ) since such information was within RLC’s possession and RLC had not complied with defendant’s discovery demands therefor (see CPLR 3212 ). Consequently, the District Court properly denied the branch of the motion for summary judgment upon the claims submitted by RLC….”
CPLR 3212(f) again. Dave Gottlieb over at NFP and on his CPLR blog has detailed this subdivision of the summary disposition statute for some time. In New York practice, it usually takes a really good reason to deny a summary judgment motion without prejudice, in accordance with subdivision (f) of Rule 3212 of the CPLR. In no-fault and 5102(d) threshold practice, subdivision (f) is successfully invoked as a matter of course in the case of a Mallela violation or when a Plaintiff moves on the basis that he or she sustained a serious injury prior to the performance of Defendant’s IME’s.
Outside of these two situations, the usual trend is to deny a CPLR 3212(f) application. Here is a prime example — Delta Radiology, P.C. v. Interboro Insurance Company, 25 Misc.3d 134(A)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2009):
“Contrary to defendant’s contention, although plaintiff’s claim was submitted more than 45 days after the services at issue were rendered, defendant waived its reliance on the 45-day rule (Insurance Department Regulations § 65-1.1) as a basis to deny the claim because defendant had failed to communicate to plaintiff, as required by the No-Fault Regulations, that late submission of the proof of claim will be excused where the applicant can provide a reasonable justification for the late submission ( see Insurance Department Regulations § 65-3.3; SZ Med. P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co., 12 Misc.3d 52 ). Further, defendant failed to demonstrate that discovery was needed in order to show the existence of a triable issue of fact ( see CPLR 3212 ).”
Understanding EUO Transcript Admissibility in New York Courts
For personal injury and no-fault practitioners throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City’s five boroughs, Examination Under Oath (EUO) transcripts represent some of the most powerful evidence available in insurance litigation. However, their admissibility depends on strict compliance with foundational requirements that many attorneys overlook.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Can condensed EUO transcripts ever be used in summary judgment motions?
A: Generally no. New York courts require properly certified verbatim transcripts for summary judgment purposes. Condensed transcripts may be useful for other purposes but lack the reliability necessary for dispositive motions.
Q: How long do I have to request CPLR 3212(f) relief?
A: CPLR 3212(f) applications should be made promptly when discovery issues arise. Delayed applications may be viewed as dilatory tactics and denied on that basis.
Expert Legal Representation for Complex Evidence Issues
When facing complex evidentiary challenges or procedural disputes in New York no-fault and personal injury litigation, experienced legal counsel can make all the difference. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has extensive experience navigating the intricate rules governing EUO transcripts, discovery disputes, and summary judgment practice throughout New York State.
Call (516) 750-0595 today to discuss your case with an attorney who understands the complexities of New York evidence law and civil procedure. We serve clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the surrounding areas.
Related Articles
- Written opposition strategies for beating procedural defects
- First Department decisions impacting no-fault practice and evidentiary standards
- Understanding Article 10 evidentiary issues and expert witness testimony rules
- Civil Court evidence rules and CPLR 3101(d) peer review requirements
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post, New York’s no-fault regulations have undergone significant amendments, including updates to examination under oath procedures under § 65-3.16 and claim processing requirements. Additionally, court interpretations of EUO transcript admissibility standards and CPLR 3212(f) applications in no-fault cases have continued to evolve. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent appellate decisions when relying on EUO evidence and procedural motions.
