Key Takeaway
District Court decision explores EUO document request scope and consequences of non-attendance in New York no-fault insurance cases.
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.
Back to Back Chiropractor, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 51088(U)(Dis. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2012)
This opinion is interesting and worth reading because it addresses a few issues that are going to have to be tackled at some point by an appellate court. They form the bane of many lower arbitrators’ decisions.
- “Nonetheless, defendant’s request for the production of documents and information seven days prior to the EUO is troubling to the Court. The request, as plaintiff contends, is clearly outside the scope of permissible information. Lower Courts have found this type of EUO request for documents and information to be “palpably improper”.
The Court addresses the discoverability of tax returns. I think corporate tax returns are openly discoverable during verification.
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.
Despite the above: “However it is the plaintiff’s reaction to the “palpably improper” document demand of defendant’s EUO request that vitiates its causes of action. Here, the plaintiff did nothing and did not contact the defendant’s counsel to protest the document request. There is no provision in the no-fault regulations which permit a claimant or an insurance company to ignore communications from each other “without risking its chance to prevail in the matter”
- The plaintiff’s assignee also did not show up at either date for the EUO’s. Again, there was no protest of the fact that the EUO’s were scheduled at the inconvenient location of Poughkeepsie, New York, a few hours upstate from plaintiff’s office in Nassau County. Nor did the plaintiff request reimbursement for time and travel expenses “thereby preserving its defenses concerning the EUO notices”
I think the Court is correct: show up to the EUO and send a bill for your time and mileage. Deal with the other issues after you show up.
Related Articles
- Understanding EUO Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- How to Challenge EUO No-Show Denials: When Improper Notice Can Reverse Insurance Denials in New York
- New York EUO Requirements: When Examination Under Oath Demands Are Untimely
- Validity of EUO, Appellate Term, 2d Dept: Take two
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations and EUO procedures may have been modified through regulatory amendments or updated Department of Financial Services guidance. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding EUO document requests, scheduling requirements, and procedural compliance obligations, as standards for “palpably improper” requests and response protocols may have evolved.
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
Roggio/Westchester-Lincoln
New York court ruling clarifies medical providers' independent arbitration rights and insurer EUO denial requirements in no-fault insurance cases.
Jul 17, 2012
Provider EUO requests
New York court reaffirms established EUO timing rules in First Class Med.
Apr 10, 2019
EUO sustained – failure to challenge EUO requests is fatal to provider’s position
Court upholds no-fault insurer's EUO denial after provider failed to challenge examination requests. Key ruling on EUO justification requirements in NY.
Jun 20, 2016
First Department upholds EUO DJ victory
First Department upholds declaratory judgment victory for insurer after assignors failed to appear at scheduled examinations under oath in no-fault case.
Dec 23, 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.
