Why Trust This Analysis
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.
Insurance companies in New York no-fault cases often try to buy themselves extra time when processing claims by sending delay letters citing pending examinations under oath (EUOs). However, these tactical delays have legal limits. Under New York No-Fault Insurance Law, insurers must pay or deny claims within 30 days, and the Appellate Term has consistently held that certain types of delay notices cannot extend this crucial deadline.
The East Coast Acupuncture decision reinforces an important principle: insurers cannot simply send generic delay letters referencing EUO requirements to indefinitely postpone their obligation to make claim determinations. This ruling protects healthcare providers and other no-fault claimants from indefinite delays while EUO objections may prove futile anyway.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
East Coast Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51229(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
“With respect to the unpaid portions of the remaining bills which defendant claims were timely denied based upon the fee schedules, the letters from defendant to plaintiff which were annexed to defendant’s motion papers and which advised plaintiff that the processing of its bills was being delayed pending an examination under oath were insufficient to toll the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny those bills (see Insurance Law § 5106 ; Insurance Department Regulations § 65-3.5 ; see also Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 )“
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.
Key Takeaway
Generic delay letters citing pending EUO examinations cannot extend the statutory 30-day deadline for claim determinations under Insurance Law § 5106. Insurance companies must still comply with the mandatory timeframes for paying or denying no-fault claims, regardless of ongoing examination requirements. This protects providers from indefinite payment delays disguised as procedural necessities.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post, New York’s no-fault regulations under 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5 and related Insurance Law provisions may have been amended, particularly regarding claim determination deadlines, EUO procedures, and tolling provisions. Practitioners should verify current regulatory language and recent appellate decisions, as both procedural requirements and fee schedule provisions have undergone periodic updates since 2011.
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.
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
EUOs (rescheduling)
New York court clarifies that mutually agreed EUO rescheduling doesn't constitute failure to appear, but subsequent no-shows do under no-fault insurance law.
Dec 4, 2015
Timely denials necessary and a citation to Westchester/Lincoln
New York court rules on timely denial requirements for IME/EUO no-show cases, questioning continued reliance on 2009 Westchester/Lincoln precedent despite newer case law.
Jul 6, 2014
A reasonable basis inquiry to the propriety of an EUO is foreclosed absent a timely objection
Court rules that challenges to EUO reasonableness are waived without timely objection, establishing key precedent for no-fault insurance defense strategies.
Apr 16, 2011
Where was the partner?
Court rules insurance company failed to prove assignor's EUO non-appearance with personal knowledge testimony, highlighting burden of proof requirements in no-fault cases.
Jun 3, 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 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.
