Key Takeaway
Compas Med case shows how plaintiff established prima facie case despite untimely EUO denials, demonstrating strategic forum shopping in NY no-fault law
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 269 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.
Compas Med., P.C. v Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50254(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
hPlaintiff made his prima facie case based upon: i) his motion ( “In support of its motion seeking summary judgment, plaintiff submitted an affidavit by its president which established that the claim forms had been mailed to defendant[;] The affidavit also established proof of the fact and the amount of the loss sustained, by demonstrating that the claim forms annexed to plaintiff’s motion were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518); and ii)Defendant’s cross-motion (“As to plaintiff’s first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action, the papers submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion showed that the denials of these claims, which were based on plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), were untimely”)
The reason you can say this is because on the same day (Medical Assoc., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50248(U)) and on many days, similar proof was insufficient to make a prima facie case because: “plaintiff’s cross motion failed to establish plaintiff’s prima facie case because the affidavit submitted in support of the cross motion failed to establish that the claims at issue had not been timely denied or that defendant had issued timely denials of claim that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law.”
But Compas goes to show how a plaintiff will sacrifice prima facie just to avoid going head to head with Unitrin. It also shows why plaintiff firms will “locate” in Nassau County so that they can get arbitration hearings in Second Department venues where Unitrin will not be followed.
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.
Finally, this shows again how in no-fault, the rule that a court should not consider the sufficiency of the opponents papers if the movant fails to make a prima facie case is completely ignored.
Related Articles
- Understanding Prima Facie Cases in New York No-Fault Insurance Law
- Prima Facie Case Requirements in NY No-Fault Insurance: Avoiding the Omni Chiropractic Mistake
- 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 No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York’s no-fault regulations have undergone multiple amendments, particularly regarding examination under oath procedures, claim denial timeframes, and prima facie case requirements under CPLR 4518. Practitioners should verify current provisions in 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent appellate decisions, as procedural requirements and evidentiary standards may have been modified.
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
Proof insufficient to comply with 65-3.5(b), 65-3.6(b)
Court rules insufficient proof of proper EUO notice and no-show in Liberty Mutual v K.O.
Sep 28, 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, 2014
The trouble with proving prima facie on summary judgment as a plaintiff
NY Second Department makes prima facie cases nearly impossible for medical providers. Expert analysis of no-fault litigation challenges. Call 516-750-0595.
Jan 10, 2013
Understanding No-Fault Insurance Claims: The Dan Medical Case and Its Impact on Long Island Residents
Understand NY no-fault insurance law & the Bajaj case impact on Long Island residents. Expert legal analysis. Call 516-750-0595 for free consultation.
Oct 13, 2008Was 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.
