Key Takeaway
Court rules that challenges to EUO reasonableness are waived without timely objection, establishing key precedent for no-fault insurance defense strategies.
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 197 published articles analyzing euo issues 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.
Crescent Radiology, PLLC v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50622(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
“The papers substantiate the basis for the EUO request. Moreover, plaintiff does not claim to have responded in any way to defendant’s request for an EUO. Therefore, plaintiff will not be heard to complain that there was no reasonable basis for the EUO request (cf. Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553 ; Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140, 2010 NY Slip Op 50987 ; Mary Immaculate Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 130, 2008 NY Slip Op 52046 ).”
This is an important case, and I think it can be read two ways. First, it can be read to require that an objective basis be necessary to compel the attendance at an EUO, but that inquiry is waived without an objection. Second, it can be read to require that an objection be lodged prior to a “reasonableness” inquiry being considered.
Since the DOI has opined that an objective basis inquiry has no bearing on whether to substantiate the validity of the EUO demand, it would seem that the court is therein discussing the reasonableness inquiry. That being said, the prudent plaintiff attorney should (and usually does) communicate with the insurance carrier explaining why the EUO is improper, following receipt of the demand. Similarly, the insurance carrier should promptly respond to the plaintiff’s objection letter explaining why the EUO is reasonable or justified. At that point, the ball is in the plaintiff’s court to decide what to do.
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.
Related Articles
- Understanding EUO Denial: When Insurance Companies Can Substantiate Coverage Denials
- Summary judgment granted on EUO no-show defense – interesting analysis
- Discovery disallowed when EUO requests are not responded to by deponent
- EUO no-show defense sustained
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 decision, New York appellate courts have issued additional rulings on EUO waiver principles and objection requirements that may have refined or clarified the standards discussed here. Additionally, Department of Financial Services regulatory interpretations regarding EUO procedures and reasonable basis standards may have evolved. Practitioners should verify current case law and regulatory guidance when advising clients on EUO objection timing and waiver issues.
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.
Keep Reading
More EUO issues Analysis
EUO No-Show: Attorney Affirmation Sufficient Despite Time Lapse Between No-Shows and Execution
Appellate Term reverses Civil Court, holding that an attorney's affirmation attesting to plaintiff's failure to appear at EUOs was sufficient despite.
Feb 25, 2026
EUO no-show – correct statement of law
Court ruling clarifies that insurers cannot enforce EUO requests sent more than 30 days after receiving claims, making late requests nullities under New York no-fault law.
May 22, 2021
EUO no-show mailing and personal knowledge substantiated
Court ruling confirms that proper mailing procedures and attorney's personal knowledge can establish EUO no-shows, setting important precedent for no-fault insurance disputes.
Dec 19, 2013
The EUO is not admissible?
New York court ruling on EUO transcript admissibility under the "New York doctrine" - when examination under oath testimony is inadmissible as hearsay in no-fault cases.
May 22, 2021
EUO is untimely and not a double no-show
New York court rules EUO scheduling was untimely and rescheduling prevents valid no-show claims in no-fault insurance case, establishing key precedent for providers.
Jul 26, 2017
The backtracking of Unitrin
Long Island court cases analyzing IME scheduling compliance under Insurance Department Regulations, examining when no-show denials fail due to improper timing requirements.
Oct 6, 2015Was 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 euo issues 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.
