Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing mailing coverage, with 53 published articles analyzing mailing 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.
Understanding Mailing Requirements for Insurance Denial Affidavits
In New York no-fault insurance litigation, insurance companies must prove they timely mailed claim denials to comply with statutory requirements. A common misconception among practitioners is that insurers must specify the exact date a denial was mailed in their supporting affidavits. This misunderstanding has led to numerous unsuccessful challenges to summary judgment motions.
The Appellate Term’s decision in Point of Health Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. provides important clarity on what constitutes sufficient proof of mailing practices in no-fault cases. The ruling demonstrates that courts will accept properly executed affidavits describing standard office procedures, even without specific dates, when establishing timely mailing of denials.
This decision is particularly relevant for attorneys handling no-fault cases, as questions about certified mail and regular mail procedures frequently arise in insurance litigation.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
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.
Point of Health Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51724(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
Five bucks says I am going to see this argument again in one of the oppositions sitting on my desk. Another five bucks says I will see it again next month…and the month after that…..etc. I mean I still see Contemporary v. Geico cited as if it still represents good law. So I digress.
Anyway, see below:
“The Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion, finding that defendant had failed to specify the dates on which its denials were mailed.”
“Contrary to the conclusion of the Civil Court, the affidavit of defendant’s claims division employee was sufficient to establish that the relevant denial of claim forms had been timely mailed in accordance with defendant’s standard office practices and procedures”
I applaud Geico because this rationale for denying summary judgment motions is one that comes up frequently, and is completely incorrect on the law.
Key Takeaway
Insurance companies are not required to specify exact mailing dates in their affidavits when proving timely denial of no-fault claims. Courts will accept affidavits describing standard office procedures and practices as sufficient evidence of proper mailing, making challenges based solely on the absence of specific dates legally insufficient.
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.
About This Topic
Proof of Mailing in New York No-Fault Practice
Proof of mailing is a foundational issue in no-fault litigation. Insurers must prove timely mailing of denial forms, verification requests, and EUO scheduling letters, while providers and claimants must prove timely submission of claim forms and bills. Establishing a standard office mailing procedure through business records — and the presumption of receipt that follows — is heavily litigated. These articles examine the evidentiary standards for proving and challenging mailing in New York no-fault cases.
53 published articles in Mailing
Keep Reading
More Mailing Analysis
Putting the wrong floor is not fatal
Court rules that incorrect floor designation in IME notice mailing address is not fatal when building address is otherwise correct and proper mailing procedures followed.
Mar 22, 2021
Mailing, again
New York's Second Department reinforces strict RPAPL 1304 mailing requirements in mortgage cases, emphasizing the need for proper evidence of both certified and first-class mail...
Nov 3, 2019
Arizona and ATIC
New York appellate decision highlights critical issues with notice delivery in insurance cancellations and problematic attorney conduct during depositions in ATIC case.
Dec 29, 2017
Mailing and the first time “objective” has landed in a medical rational case
Court ruling establishes "objective medical explanation" requirement for no-fault insurance medical necessity defenses and highlights proper mailing procedure standards.
Dec 23, 2014
How do you overcome the presumption of mailing?
Learn how to overcome mailing presumptions in NY no-fault insurance cases. Expert analysis of court requirements for affidavits and proof standards.
May 30, 2012
Why don't Defendant's start to use the Notice to Admit to establish their Prima Facie? Am I missing something?
Exploring whether defendants can use Notices to Admit to establish prima facie cases in New York no-fault insurance litigation and departmental differences.
Jul 1, 2010Was 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 mailing 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.
