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.
Understanding EUO Motion Requirements in No-Fault Insurance Cases
In New York’s no-fault insurance system, insurance companies frequently request examinations under oath (EUOs) from claimants to investigate potential fraud or gather additional information about claims. A common question that arises in litigation is whether insurers must attach the actual insurance policy to their motion papers when seeking court orders compelling EUOs.
The Eagle Surgical Supply case provides important clarification on this procedural requirement. When insurance companies file motions in court related to New York No-Fault Insurance Law matters, they often face challenges from opposing parties who argue that failure to include certain documentation should result in denial of the motion.
This case specifically addresses whether the absence of the insurance policy itself in motion papers creates a fatal defect that would prevent a court from granting relief related to EUO compliance. The ruling has significant implications for how insurance companies structure their motion practice and what documentation courts require to make determinations about EUO entitlements.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
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.
Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50772(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)
“On appeal, plaintiff contends that these branches of defendant’s motion should have been denied because defendant never proved that the applicable automobile insurance policy contained a provision entitling defendant to EUOs. This argument lacks merit”
Key Takeaway
The court rejected the argument that insurance companies must prove policy provisions by including the actual policy in their motion papers. This ruling streamlines the motion practice for EUO-related disputes, as insurers can rely on other forms of proof to establish their contractual right to examinations. However, claimants who face EUO objections should understand that failure to appear can have serious consequences for their cases.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 decision, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and procedural requirements for EUO motions may have been modified through regulatory amendments or updated court rules. Practitioners should verify current documentation requirements and motion practice standards under the most recent Insurance Law provisions and applicable court rules when filing EUO-related motions.
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
A lesson on why the failure to attempt a DJ on an EUO no-show can spell doom
A 2012 case highlights how insurance companies must properly establish EUO scheduling to avoid losing their right to deny claims based on no-shows.
Mar 2, 2012
Timely EUO denial
Court rules EUO request sent over 30 days after claim receipt is invalid, reinforcing strict timing requirements in New York no-fault insurance cases.
Dec 18, 2018
EUO fee not a condition precedent to appearance at EUO
Court rules EUO fee demands are improper - providers cannot require upfront payment before attending examination under oath in NY no-fault cases.
May 10, 2016
Alrof”t” (read the cited to decisions)
Two conflicting New York Civil Court decisions highlight ongoing debate over EUO no-show requirements and proper practice procedures in no-fault insurance cases.
Oct 4, 2014Was 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.
