Key Takeaway
New York no-fault insurance law case establishing that failure to object to EUO notice prevents later challenges to its validity or reasonableness.
This article is part of our ongoing additional verification coverage, with 92 published articles analyzing additional verification 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.
Canarsie Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50950(U)(Civ. Ct. Kings Co 2010)
“In support of its second contention, Plaintiff argues that despite the fact that the accident occurred in Kings County and the Plaintiff resides in Kings County, Defendant scheduled the EUOs to be held at the offices of its counsel located in Westchester County. As such, Plaintiff claims that the EUO notices were defective and unreasonable because it failed to provide that Plaintiff would be paid for her time and travel expenses.
Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff did not respond to the Verification Request. Plaintiff asserts that it was not required to respond due to the fact that Defendant’s request was defective and unreasonable. The Court disagrees. There is no provision of the No Fault Regulations which allow a claimant or insurance company to ignore a Verification Request or response. In fact, there is ample case law which provides that neither party may ignore communications from the other without risking its chance to prevail in the matter (see, Media Neurology, P.C. v. Countrywide Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 1101(A); and Westchester County Medical Center v. NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553). Even when a claimant believes it need not comply with a verification request, the claimant still has a duty to communicate with the insurer regarding the request (see, Dilon Medical Supply Corp. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 7 Misc 3d 927). It is well established that the purpose of the No Fault statute is to ensure prompt resolution of claims by accident victims. The parties’ obligations are centered on good faith and common sense. Any questions concerning a communication should be addressed by further communication, not inaction.(see, Dilon Medical Supply Corp. v. Travelers Insurance Co, supra).
If a Plaintiff deems a Verification Request to be defective and or unreasonable, it is incumbent on that Plaintiff to convey that information to the Defendant and to state the reasons thereof, thereby giving the Defendant the opportunity to respond accordingly. The Defendant should not be put in a position to second guess the reason or reasons why the Plaintiff has failed to respond to the request. In this case, the Plaintiff could have informed the Defendant that given the fact that the Plaintiff resided in Brooklyn, the scheduled location for the EUO was inconvenient, or in the alternative, Plaintiff could have requested reimbursement for time and travel expenses, thereby preserving its defenses concerning the EUO notices (see, Presbyterian v Maryland, 90 NY2d 274). By failing to respond to Defendant’s Verification Request, Plaintiff undermined the purpose of the No Fault Statute, which is to ensure the prompt resolution of claims.
The Court finds that by failing to respond to Defendant’s Verification Request, Plaintiff waived its defense and is therefore estopped from asserting that the EUO notices were defective and unreasonable. Defendant should not be penalized for Plaintiff’s inaction. Accordingly, the Court [*3]need not address Plaintiff’s arguments concerning the sufficiency of Defendant’s EUO requests (see Allstate Social Work and Psychological Svcs. v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co., 22 Misc 3d 723).”
The bolded passages tell the story about this case. While the better practice is to hold EUO’s in the county where the deponent resides or where the treatment is occurring, the court correctly found that a venue defect must be met with a prompt objection or forever be waived.
This should be analogized to CPLR 3122(a), where the courts have interpreted the statute to mean that absent a timely objection to the deposition notice, most objections, save those that allege the deposition is palpably improper, are waived.
Related Articles
- Understanding Verification Requests in New York No-Fault Insurance Claims
- Procedural Fairness in No-Fault Insurance Litigation: Is It Fair?
- The Verification Process in No-Fault Insurance: When Technical Requirements Override Common Sense
- The 120-day rule
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations may have been amended regarding examination under oath procedures, notice requirements, and waiver standards. Practitioners should verify current provisions of 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent case law developments concerning unobjected-to EUO notices and procedural compliance requirements.
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.
About This Topic
Additional Verification in No-Fault Claims
Under New York's no-fault regulations, insurers may request additional verification of a claim within specified time limits. The timeliness, scope, and reasonableness of verification requests — and the consequences of a claimant's failure to respond — are among the most litigated issues in no-fault practice. These articles examine the regulatory framework for verification requests, court decisions on compliance, and the interplay between verification delays and claim determination deadlines.
92 published articles in Additional Verification
Keep Reading
More Additional Verification Analysis
No Denial Required When Provider Fails to Respond to Verification Within 120 Days
Appellate Division holds insurers need not issue a denial when a medical provider or injured person fails to respond to verification demands within 120 days. Analysis of Chapa...
Feb 25, 2026120-day rule and Fee Schedule
New York court ruling demonstrates how healthcare providers can lose no-fault claims due to verification failures and fee schedule violations in insurance disputes.
Feb 1, 2020Navigating New York No-Fault Additional Verification Challenges: Long Island Healthcare Providers
Understanding New York no-fault additional verification requirements and challenges for healthcare providers. Expert legal guidance for Long Island practices. Call (516) 750-0595.
Jan 18, 2013on file"
Learn about NY signature on file requirements for assignment of benefits forms. Expert analysis of verification procedures and no-fault insurance law.
Nov 16, 2009Additional Verification non-receipt
Court rules that no-fault insurer's 30-day payment period doesn't start until they actually receive requested verification documents, even if provider claims they were sent.
Jul 31, 2017Allowing non-sense to continue
Court allows bare "I responded to verification" affidavit to defeat summary judgment motion, despite no actual verification documents being submitted as evidence.
Aug 24, 2015Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is additional verification in no-fault insurance?
Additional verification is a request by the insurer for more information to process a no-fault claim, authorized under 11 NYCRR §65-3.5. When the insurer sends a verification request, the 30-day clock for claim processing is tolled (paused) until the requested information is received. This is a common insurer tactic to delay payment — but the verification request must be timely and relevant to be valid.
How long does an insurer have to request additional verification?
Under the no-fault regulations, the insurer must request initial verification within 15 business days of receiving the claim. Follow-up verification requests must be made within 10 business days of receiving a response to the prior request. If the insurer fails to meet these deadlines, the verification request is invalid and cannot be used to toll the claim processing period.
What types of additional verification can a no-fault insurer request?
Under 11 NYCRR §65-3.5, insurers may request medical records, provider licensing documentation, proof of treatment rendered, tax returns or financial records (in certain fraud investigations), authorization for release of medical records, and signed NF-3 verification forms. The verification request must be relevant to the claim and not overly burdensome. Requests for information not reasonably related to claim processing may be challenged as improper.
What happens if I don't respond to a no-fault verification request?
Failure to respond to a timely and proper verification request can result in denial of your no-fault claim. Under 11 NYCRR §65-3.5(o), if the requested verification is not provided within 120 calendar days of the initial request, the claim is deemed denied. The 120-day period runs from the date of the original request. However, if the verification request itself was untimely or improper, the denial based on non-response may be challenged.
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 additional verification 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.