Key Takeaway
Court ruling on verification requests in NY no-fault insurance cases, establishing requirements for adequate responses and consequences of inadequate compliance.
This article is part of our ongoing additional verification coverage, with 92 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.
D & R Med. Supply v American Tr. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51727(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
I think this case shows the perils a law firm or plaintiff encounters when they attempt to challenge the veracity and necessity of verification. This is a huge case.
“The record establishes that plaintiff’s responses to defendant’s verification requests failed to provide the information which defendant had requested, in that plaintiff merely stated that the supplies at issue had been provided pursuant to a doctor’s prescription and did not advise defendant of the name of the doctor who had issued the prescription or where the doctor was located so that defendant could try to obtain the requested information from the prescribing doctor (see Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140, 2010 NY Slip Op 50987 ). Consequently, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as premature should have been granted, as defendant’s time to pay or deny the claim had not begun to run (see Insurance Department Regulations § 65-3.8 ; Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 903 ; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 ; Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 533 ). In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.”
Interesting dissent but it missed the point.
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 Verification Requests in New York No-Fault Insurance Claims
- The Verification Process in No-Fault Insurance: When Technical Requirements Override Common Sense
- Procedural Fairness in No-Fault Insurance Litigation: Is It Fair?
- The 120-day rule
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 post, New York Insurance Department Regulation § 65-3.8 governing verification requests and claim processing timeframes may have been amended or updated. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding verification response requirements, acceptable documentation standards, and claim payment timelines, as regulatory changes could affect the procedural requirements discussed in this case analysis.
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.
92 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
120-day rule and Fee Schedule
New York court ruling demonstrates how healthcare providers can lose no-fault claims due to verification failures and fee schedule violations in insurance disputes.
Feb 1, 2020
EUO letter did not toll time to pay or deny
Court rules EUO scheduling letter must identify specific person being requested for examination or lose toll benefit under NY Insurance Regulation 65-3.6(b).
Oct 27, 2013
The failure to respond to ALL of the requested verification renders lawsuit premature
Eagle Surgical’s October 2010 appeal found an incomplete verification response. Compare its record with the August proof failure and later objection rules.
Oct 18, 2010
120-day rule rebutted
Solution Bridge v State Farm left a factual dispute over mailed verification. It did not abolish the 120-day rule or require postal receipts in every case.
Nov 25, 2018
Delay letters v. verification requests
New York court clarifies that generic delay letters don't toll statutory payment deadlines—only specific verification requests can extend an insurer's time to pay or deny claims.
Nov 28, 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 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.
