Key Takeaway
Court rules CPLR 3211(a)(1) cannot establish policy violation defenses in no-fault cases, highlighting the need for strategic motion practice in busy NYC courts.
When insurance companies defend against no-fault claims by arguing that patients failed to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs), they often face strategic decisions about which legal motions to file. A 2010 Civil Court decision in Brooklyn clarified important limitations on using certain pre-answer motions in these cases.
The case involved an acupuncture practice suing State Farm for unpaid no-fault benefits, with the insurer likely claiming the patient’s failure to attend an EUO voided coverage. This type of defense requires careful consideration of procedural timing, particularly given the 120-day time limits for summary judgment motions that govern many civil proceedings.
Court’s Ruling on Procedural Motions
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
VIT Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51560(U)(Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2010)
The Civil Court found, not surprisingly, that CPLR 3211(a)(1) cannot be used to establish the bona fides of a policy violation defense. This result was probably preordained in light of Fontanetta v Doe, 73 AD3d 78 (2d Dept 2010). Except to prove a point that a pre-answer motion might be inappropriate in this particular type of case, it would seem more logical for the parties to chart a summary judgment course and have the matter adjudicated on the merits. Now, an answer will be interposed and we will start this charade again. Perhaps in an upstate court, an additional motion that is added to the calendar is inconsequential. But, when you have 400 motions a day being calendared in Special Term in Civil Kings, each additional motion that does not need to made puts the attorneys and the staff that much closer to sharing the building with the small claims night-court term.
Key Takeaway
Courts cannot use CPLR 3211(a)(1) motions to resolve EUO no-show defenses in no-fault cases. Insurance companies and healthcare providers should focus on summary judgment strategies rather than ineffective pre-answer motions, especially given the heavy motion calendars in busy metropolitan courts like Brooklyn’s Civil Court.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 analysis, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone multiple amendments, including revisions to examination procedures, time limits, and procedural requirements for EUO defenses. Additionally, CPLR provisions and case law interpretations regarding pre-answer motions in insurance coverage disputes may have evolved. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent appellate decisions when evaluating procedural strategies for EUO no-show defenses.
