Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing additional verification coverage, with 123 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.
The Critical Importance of Personal Knowledge in Legal Affidavits
In no-fault insurance litigation, healthcare providers frequently face challenges when insurance companies claim they never received requested verification documents. A 2010 appellate court decision demonstrates why attorneys must be extremely careful about what they attest to in legal affidavits — particularly when it comes to having actual personal knowledge of the facts they’re swearing to.
This case from St. Vincent’s Hospital illustrates a common scenario in New York No-Fault Insurance Law disputes: an insurance company requesting additional verification, the healthcare provider responding with the requested documents, and then the insurer claiming the materials were never received. The outcome hinged on a fundamental principle of evidence law that often gets overlooked in the heat of litigation.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 52063(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010)
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.
“As defendant was already in possession, prior to its verification requests, of the subject NF-5 forms, which each bore notations that the assignor’s signature was “on file,” defendant’s verification requests, in effect, sought a copy of the document(s) “on file” which had been signed by the assignors. Since SVHMC established that it had, in response to the verification requests, provided defendant with copies of the authorizations to release information and the assignments executed by the assignors, SVHMC established that it had complied with those requests. While defendant’s attorney asserted that defendant had never received the signed assignment of benefits forms, defendant’s attorney’s affirmation was without probative value as defendant’s attorney lacked personal knowledge of same”
Do you see what was missing from Appellant’s answering papers?
Key Takeaway
The court rejected the insurance company’s claim of non-receipt because their attorney’s affirmation lacked personal knowledge. This ruling demonstrates that attorneys cannot simply assert facts they don’t personally know to be true. For more examples of verification non-receipt issues and guidance on how insurers must prove they never received verification, legal practitioners must ensure their affidavits are based on actual firsthand knowledge rather than assumptions or hearsay.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations have undergone multiple amendments affecting verification procedures, documentation requirements, and affidavit standards. The Insurance Department has updated fee schedules and revised procedural requirements for additional verification requests that may impact the analysis discussed in this post. Practitioners should verify current provisions under 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent case law developments regarding personal knowledge requirements in no-fault litigation affidavits.
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
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.
123 published articles in Additional Verification
Keep Reading
More Additional Verification Analysis
No Denial Required When Provider Fails to Respond to Verification Within 120 Days
Chapa v MVAIC rejected a 150-day denial deadline, not the need to prove a verification defense. Read the 2026 decision and the historical case directory.
Feb 25, 2026
Standing (favorite statutes)
New York's RPAPL 1302-a prevents homeowners from waiving standing defenses in foreclosure cases, even if not raised initially—a game-changing protection for defendants.
Mar 22, 2021
Boilerplate affidavit mandates triable issue of fact on verification issue
Three 2015 verification-affidavit decisions compared: who moved, what remained disputed, and why neither a form affidavit nor nonreceipt decides every case.
May 27, 2015
The first application of the new precludable independent contractor rule
New precedent protects NYC & Long Island medical providers from post-payment independent contractor challenges in no-fault insurance cases. Call 516-750-0595.
Jan 10, 2013
Assignments and business records – a deadly combination
CPLR 4518(a) business-records foundation for assignment of benefits in NY. Palisades v Kedik analysis, electronic-record authentication, no-fault defense.
Nov 15, 2009
No need to send letter to attorney
Recover Medical Services v Ameriprise: late EUO requests defeated dismissal for some bills, while the attorney-notice objection failed for three others.
Jan 19, 2018Was 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 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.
