Key Takeaway
Court ruling establishes that a law firm partner's affirmation can effectively prove a plaintiff's failure to appear at a scheduled examination under oath.
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 198 published articles analyzing euo 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.
Proving Non-Attendance at Examinations Under Oath
In New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases, insurance companies often require claimants to attend examinations under oath (EUOs) as part of the claims process. When a claimant fails to appear for a scheduled EUO, insurers may use this non-attendance as grounds to deny coverage. However, insurers must properly establish that the non-appearance actually occurred.
This case from the Appellate Term provides important guidance on what constitutes sufficient proof of an EUO no-show. The decision clarifies the evidentiary standards for demonstrating that a plaintiff failed to attend a properly scheduled examination under oath.
Establishing EUO non-appearance requires competent evidence from witnesses with personal knowledge. Insurance companies cannot rely on hearsay, claims file entries, or conclusory assertions. The witness must have direct knowledge of the non-appearance—typically by being present at the scheduled time and place and observing that the claimant did not appear. This requirement ensures that EUO no-show defenses rest on reliable evidence rather than speculation or incomplete records.
The question of who can provide this testimony has generated litigation. Must the examining attorney personally attest to non-appearance? Can law firm staff provide the necessary proof? Or can the carrier’s claims personnel establish non-attendance? The Crotona Heights Medical case addresses these questions by clarifying that law firm partners conducting EUOs can provide competent proof of non-appearance through proper affirmations.
Case Background
Crotona Heights Medical, P.C., a healthcare provider, brought suit against Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company seeking payment for no-fault benefits. The provider moved for summary judgment, establishing prima facie entitlement to payment. Farm Family opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for scheduled Examinations Under Oath.
In support of its cross-motion, Farm Family submitted an affirmation from a partner in the law firm retained to conduct the EUOs. This partner alleged facts establishing that the plaintiff failed to appear at the law office for duly scheduled examinations. The critical question became whether a law firm partner’s affirmation provided sufficient proof of non-appearance to establish the EUO no-show defense.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis
Crotona Hgts. Med., P.C. v Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50716(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
“In opposition to plaintiff’s motion and in support of its cross motion for summary judgment, defendant submitted the affirmation of a partner in the law firm retained by defendant to conduct plaintiff’s EUO. Counsel alleged facts sufficient to establish that plaintiff had failed to appear at counsel’s law office for duly scheduled EUOs”
A partner’s affirmation is sufficient so show a non-appearance at an EUO. The affirmation probably established how the partner knew that the Plaintiff failed to attend the EUO. See generally, Progressive Classic Ins. Co. v. Kitchen, 46 A.D.3d 333 (1st Dept. 2007).
Legal Significance
The Crotona Heights Medical decision establishes that law firm partners conducting EUOs possess the necessary personal knowledge to attest to non-appearances. This makes practical sense—the examining attorney scheduled the EUO, prepared for it, and was present at the scheduled time. When the claimant fails to appear, the attorney has direct personal knowledge of that non-appearance. An affirmation from such an attorney meets the personal knowledge requirement courts impose for EUO no-show defenses.
The decision builds on Progressive Classic Insurance Co. v Kitchen, a First Department case addressing similar evidentiary issues. Kitchen established that proof of EUO non-appearance requires personal knowledge and cannot rest on hearsay or indirect evidence. Crotona Heights extends this principle by confirming that the examining attorney’s personal knowledge suffices—additional corroboration from reception staff or other witnesses is unnecessary.
This ruling has important implications for how insurance carriers structure EUO procedures. Carriers often use outside law firms to conduct EUOs, particularly when litigation has commenced. These attorneys schedule examinations, prepare questions, and conduct the sworn testimony. When claimants fail to appear, these same attorneys possess first-hand knowledge of the non-appearance. Their affirmations or affidavits provide the competent evidence courts require to establish EUO no-show defenses.
The decision also clarifies that the partner’s affirmation must “allege facts sufficient to establish” non-appearance. Generic assertions are insufficient. The affirmation must explain how the partner knows about the non-appearance—for example, by stating that the partner was present at the scheduled time and location, that appropriate preparations had been made, and that the claimant did not appear despite proper notice. Providing these factual details distinguishes personal knowledge from speculation.
Practical Implications
For insurance carriers and defense counsel, Crotona Heights Medical validates the common practice of having examining attorneys attest to EUO non-appearances. When carriers retain law firms to conduct EUOs, those firms can provide the necessary proof of non-appearance through partner affirmations. Defense counsel should ensure these affirmations contain sufficient factual detail—not just conclusory statements that the claimant failed to appear, but specific allegations about the partner’s presence, preparations, and observations.
The decision also counsels carriers about record-keeping. The examining attorney should maintain contemporaneous notes documenting the scheduled EUO time and the claimant’s non-appearance. These notes support the later affirmation and provide defense counsel with specific facts to include. Without such documentation, the partner’s affirmation may lack the factual specificity courts require.
For healthcare providers and plaintiffs’ attorneys, Crotona Heights narrows the available challenges to EUO no-show defenses. Providers cannot successfully argue that examining attorneys lack personal knowledge of non-appearances. The attorneys were present and observed the non-appearance—that is sufficient personal knowledge. Instead, providers must focus on other potential deficiencies: improper notice of the EUO, unreasonable scheduling, or failure to properly reschedule when the claimant sought an adjournment.
Providers should also scrutinize the examining attorney’s affirmation for factual gaps. Does it actually allege facts showing personal knowledge, or does it contain only conclusory statements? Did the attorney explain how they know the claimant failed to appear? These questions can identify weaknesses in the carrier’s proof even when the examining attorney provides the attestation.
The decision reinforces the importance of complying with EUO requests. When carriers properly schedule EUOs and claimants fail to appear without justification, courts will sustain claim denials. The examining attorney’s affirmation provides the proof carriers need, and providers have limited grounds to challenge such proof. Claimants who ignore EUO notices risk losing their right to benefits regardless of the underlying merits of their claims.
Key Takeaway
The court’s decision establishes that a law firm partner’s affirmation containing sufficient factual allegations can effectively prove that a plaintiff failed to appear for a scheduled EUO. This ruling provides insurers with clear guidance on the type of evidence needed to substantiate no-show claims in litigation involving examination under oath requirements.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 decision, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and EUO procedural requirements may have been amended, particularly regarding notice provisions, scheduling protocols, and evidentiary standards for proving non-attendance. Practitioners should verify current Insurance Law Article 51 provisions and recent Appellate Term decisions when establishing EUO no-show defenses.
Related Articles
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 EUO issues Analysis
EUO No-Show: Attorney Affirmation Sufficient Despite Time Lapse Between No-Shows and Execution
Appellate Term reverses Civil Court, holding that an attorney's affirmation attesting to plaintiff's failure to appear at EUOs was sufficient despite a 'significant lapse in time.'...
Feb 25, 2026
EUO no-show – correct statement of law
Court ruling clarifies that insurers cannot enforce EUO requests sent more than 30 days after receiving claims, making late requests nullities under New York no-fault law.
May 22, 2021
First Department upholds EUO DJ victory
First Department upholds declaratory judgment victory for insurer after assignors failed to appear at scheduled examinations under oath in no-fault case.
Dec 23, 2014
EUO No-Show Victory: Strategic Legal Analysis for Long Island & NYC Medical Providers
Expert analysis of Flatlands Med v State Farm EUO no-show case. Learn strategic approaches for Long Island & NYC medical providers in no-fault insurance disputes. Call...
Jan 18, 2013
EUOs
Recent New York appellate decisions clarify EUO requirements for no-fault insurers, addressing standards for summary judgment and procedural compliance issues.
May 20, 2019
Mutual rescheduling in between two no shows – valid
Court ruling on EUO no-shows: mutual rescheduling between two missed examinations under oath still constitutes valid grounds for denial in New York no-fault cases.
Jul 13, 2016Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an Examination Under Oath (EUO) in no-fault insurance?
An EUO is a sworn, recorded interview conducted by the insurance company's attorney to investigate a no-fault claim. The insurer schedules the EUO and asks detailed questions about the accident, injuries, treatment, and the claimant's background. Under 11 NYCRR §65-3.5(e), appearing for the EUO is a condition precedent to receiving no-fault benefits — failure to appear can result in claim denial.
What happens if I miss my EUO appointment?
Missing an EUO (known as an EUO 'no-show') can result in denial of your no-fault benefits. However, insurers must follow strict procedural requirements: they must send two scheduling letters by certified and regular mail, provide adequate notice, and submit a timely denial based on the no-show. If the insurer fails to comply with these requirements, the denial can be overturned at arbitration or in court.
What questions will be asked at a no-fault EUO?
EUO questions typically cover your personal background, employment history, the circumstances of the accident, your injuries and symptoms, treatment received, prior accidents or injuries, and insurance history. The insurer's attorney may also ask about your daily activities and financial arrangements with medical providers. You have the right to have your attorney present, and your attorney can object to improper questions.
Can an insurance company require multiple EUOs for the same claim?
Yes, under 11 NYCRR §65-3.5(e), an insurer may request additional EUOs as reasonably necessary to investigate a claim. However, repeated EUO requests may be challenged as harassing or unreasonable. Courts have found that insurers cannot use EUOs as a tool to delay claims indefinitely. Each EUO request must be properly noticed with adequate time for the claimant to appear.
Do I have the right to an attorney at my EUO?
Yes. You have the right to have an attorney represent you at an EUO, and it is strongly recommended. Your attorney can prepare you for the types of questions asked, object to improper or overly broad questions, and ensure the insurer follows proper procedures. Having experienced no-fault counsel at your EUO can help protect your claim from being unfairly denied.
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 euo 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.
