Skip to main content
Mailing turned on its head
Mailing

Mailing turned on its head

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

NY court ruling establishes strong presumption for proper mailing in no-fault insurance cases, making it difficult for providers to deny receipt of verification requests.

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 the “Mailing Presumption” in No-Fault Insurance Cases

No-fault insurance disputes often hinge on seemingly mundane procedural issues that can have significant financial consequences. One of the most important—and frequently litigated—issues involves proving that an insurance company properly mailed verification requests to healthcare providers. The Appellate Term’s decision in Pomona Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. demonstrates how courts apply the legal presumption of proper mailing, and why this presumption heavily favors insurance companies when they follow established procedures.

Under New York’s no-fault insurance regulations, insurers must request verification of medical services within specific timeframes. When providers claim they never received these requests, courts must determine whether proper mailing occurred. This case illustrates the high burden providers face in overcoming the presumption that mail was properly sent, particularly when mailing procedures are well-documented and consistently followed.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Pomona Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50447(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)

“The affidavit of defendant’s litigation claims examiner established that defendant had timely mailed its request and follow-up request for verification to plaintiff (see Insurance Department Regulations § 65-3.5 ; § 65-3.6 ) in accordance with defendant’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 ). The mere denial by plaintiff’s medical biller of receipt of the verification requests did not overcome the presumption that proper mailing had occurred and that plaintiff had received the verification requests.”

There is nothing I like reading more than when the Plaintiff cannot prove lack of receipt after a prima case of mailing has occurred. It is vindication after the years of being trapped by the Contemporary precedent, which at the time was anything but contemporary – more or less antiquated.

Key Takeaway

The court’s ruling reinforces that insurance companies can establish proper mailing through standardized office procedures and sworn affidavits. Healthcare providers cannot defeat this presumption merely by denying receipt—they must present compelling evidence that proper mailing procedures were not followed. This decision strengthens insurers’ positions in no-fault verification disputes.


Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations sections 65-3.5 and 65-3.6 have undergone multiple amendments affecting mailing procedures, verification request timeframes, and documentation requirements. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent Appellate Term decisions, as both procedural requirements and judicial interpretations of the mailing presumption may have evolved significantly.

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

View all Mailing articles

Common Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is proof of mailing important in no-fault litigation?

Proof of mailing is critical in no-fault cases because many defenses depend on whether documents were properly sent — including denial letters, EUO scheduling notices, IME appointment letters, and verification requests. To establish proof of mailing, the insurer typically must show standard office mailing procedures through affidavit testimony and documentary evidence such as mailing logs or certified mail receipts. A failure to prove proper mailing can be fatal to the insurer's defense.

Was this article helpful?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

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.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

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.

Filed under: Mailing
Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Discussion

Comments (9)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

ML
mitch lustig
JT This is exactly what the New York Court of Appeals ruled in Nassau Insurance Company v. Murray in 1978. By the way, what is the name of the case you are citing. You did not cite the name of the case in your posting.
J
JT Author
Sorry about that. I sometimes forget to post the name of the case. Nassau v. Murray… Where were you in 1978? What is interesting is that the COA never really discussed the mailing issue subsequent to Murray.
ML
mitch lustig
In 1978 I graduated from College and was awaiting admission to law school
D
DG
I don’t remember seeing a decision that said mere denial of receipt was sufficient. You see this all of the time in motions to vacate default judgments and usually it involves a an affidavit saying so and so was personally served, but sometimes you see it in cases where a party says they never got the motion. In all the decisions I’ve seen, mere denial is not enough; except in cases where the person who was allegedly personally served says that they weren’t. I never realized you were so old. I’m going to see about getting a walker for you when you are in court.
J
JT Author
This case is nothing extraordinary. I just noted it because it was nice to see the shoe on the other foot.
LR
Larry Rogak
I have been getting the feeling lately that New York No-Fault Practice is a bit like Logan’s Run, in terms of attorneys getting older. Some day — soon perhaps — I will spend my days in a rocking chair by a Franklin stove, telling young no-fault attorneys stories about the early days of NY PIP.
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
Rogak you better hang out with me for a few months so you’ll have some fun and exciting stories to tell. I don’t know what this says. I think if the provider lays a foundation for how incoming mail is handled and logged and stamped and given to certain people depending on what the mail deals with — or simply logged and described in a practice management software system and filed. And then you say I looked here and there and everywhere — and its not there; and we don’t mess up. I don’t know how a general affidavit of how things are mailed — failing to refer to the specific item (denial etc); as we generally see — I don’t know how an affidavit saying this is the way we mail in general defeats the provider’s affidavit that says this is the way we receive mail and X did not come. The Courts have taken the syllogism way to far. All mail is sent. They denial was mailed. You see you need another component for there to be logic: All mail is sent. Denial dated such and such is mail. Denial dated such and such was sent. But when was it sent? Oh dear it needs more. To complex — why not just cut to chase courts. Here is all you need in an Affidavit. “I am insurance company. I am perfect. I mailed everything my attorney says I mailed in a timely fashion.” Have the affidavit signed electronically in Norcross GA right near where Ned Beatty had that unfortunate meeting with the Hill Billies in Deliverance. God this is America. P.S. I am working on my athiest cross. “You don’t believe in God correct?” “So you don’t believe what you are saying now.”
J
JT Author
I hear Norcross is a nice place to live. Decent schools, low taxes, minimal traffic, nice weather and a better quality of life than here in the metropolitan New York region. The air quality is not too good, but that is because it is near Atlanta. The median home price is $152,000 and the cost of living is 8% below the US mean.
RZ
Raymond Zuppa
I guess those hill billies can be put up with in that case. Just don’t go near the river. I’m looking into it. Things are getting tough on Herbert Street. Maybe I can get a job at the secure mailing facility there.

Legal Resources

Understanding New York Mailing Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how mailing cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For mailing matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review