Key Takeaway
Alev Medical Supply: how written verification affected IME-denial timing in 2009, and why today's written-verification rules need separate review.
This article is part of our ongoing additional verification coverage, with 234 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.
In Alev Medical Supply v NY Central Mutual, the Appellate Term rejected a denial deadline counted from the last missed IME without accounting for outstanding written verification. The February 19, 2013 decision granted insurer summary judgment on the second and third causes of action. The first had already been dismissed.
Historical note: Alev concerns 2009 verification; the current Part 65 written-verification provisions and Chapa (2026) must be read separately from its historical denial chronology.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
The receipt date that mattered
The insurer established timely initial and follow-up requests for both IMEs and written verification. The missed examinations were January 16 and February 2, 2009. Requested written verification arrived February 19; the insurer denied within 30 days after receiving it.
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.
That proof defeated the trial court’s conclusion that the denials were late because more than 45 days had elapsed since the second missed examination. Alev did not create a universal 45-day IME denial period. Avalon Radiology later cited Alev when ordering a new trial on a different record involving an EUO.
Read the 2009 chronology with today’s rule
The events in Alev predate the April 2013 provisions governing applicable written-verification requests. Sections 65-3.5(o) and 65-3.8(b)(3) address a 120-day response period, information within the applicant’s control or possession, reasonable justification and required notice. They expressly exclude NF-forms, IME requests and EUO requests.
Chapa (2026) rejected a mandatory 150-day deadline for the insurer’s denial under the written-verification provision. The court did not hold that silence automatically withdraws a claim. Jason’s original reaction describes Alev’s historical result; it should not be used as a rule permitting every claim to remain pending indefinitely.
Jason Tenenbaum’s original note (2013)
Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50258(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
This was seen once before in a Praetorian case last year. This case actually spells out the timing procedures regarding when verification is received and when a denial may be issued and deemed timely. What does not make sense is that in the grand scheme of things, there was no purpose in waiting for the written verification since the bill was going to be denied based upon the IME default after the second no-show. Yet, how do you get around the requirement in the regulation that a bill should not be denied while verification is pending? Appears to be a compromise holding – but it at least sets forth a hard and fast rule that the industry can appreciate.
“as to the second and third causes of action, the court found that defendant’s denials were untimely because they had been mailed more than 45 days after plaintiff’s assignor had violated a policy condition by failing to appear for the second scheduled IME. On appeal, defendant argues that the branches of its motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second and third causes of action should have been granted.”
“Defendant demonstrated that it had timely mailed both initial and follow-up IME requests and initial and follow-up requests for written verification (see Insurance Department Regulations §§ 65-3.5 ; 65-3.6 ), thereby tolling its time to pay or deny the claims at issue. While plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for IMEs on January 16, 2009 and February 2, 2009, defendant did not receive the requested written verification until February 19, 2009. As defendant denied the claims within 30 days of its receipt of the requested written verification (see Insurance Department Regulations § 65-3.8 ), the claims at issue were timely denied on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for properly scheduled IMEs, regardless of the fact that the last nonappearance had occurred more than 45 days prior to the issuance of the denial”
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show topic hub.
- Avalon Radiology: EUO timing and a new trial
- Success Rehab: the post-claim IME examination date
- Beckles: the NF-3 and duly noticed examinations
- Valdan: reply evidence and the address known at mailing
For review of a particular notice, claim file or motion, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum.
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.
234 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
Simple addition is insufficient
Jodi Jacobs's 2021 mixed appeal: four claims dismissed, one fee balance unresolved, and why the schedule alone did not prove correct code use.
May 22, 2021
Untimely Follow-Up EUO Letters: The 10-Day Rule in New York No-Fault Cases
Restoration Chiropractic v 21st Century: a follow-up EUO scheduling letter mailed more than 10 days after a no-show is untimely under New York's no-fault rules.
Feb 1, 2020
Verification non-receipt – Partial response insufficient
Compas v Travelers: partial verification responses, timely objections, and the proof supporting dismissal of a no-fault action as premature.
Oct 13, 2016
No-show failed the Alrof test
Great Health Care v Hertz: neither side earned summary judgment. The IME mailing proof and EUO nonappearance proof failed for different reasons.
Dec 23, 2014
Follow up verification issued >25 days too late is a loser
Court rules that follow-up EUO verification requests sent more than 25 days late violate Triangle "R" rule, making insurance denials untimely under no-fault regulations.
Jun 18, 2012Was 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.
