Key Takeaway
Court rules attorney affidavit lacking personal knowledge insufficient for EUO no-show summary judgment in New York no-fault case
Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 50458(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted an affirmation from its attorney who stated that upon review of his office file and “knowledge of his office practices and procedures,” plaintiff failed to appear at a properly noticed examination under oath (EUO).”
…
“The affidavit of defendant’s attorney was of no probative value as it lacked personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff. It is well settled that a motion for summary judgment must be supported by an affidavit from a person having knowledge of the facts (CPLR [*2]3212 ). A conclusory statement from an attorney which fails to demonstrate his or her personal knowledge is insufficient to support summary judgment…. To the extent our prior decisions (see e.g. W & Z Acupuncture, P.C. v Amex Assur. Co., 24 Misc 3d 142, 2009 NY Slip Op 51732 ; Points of Health Acupuncture, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 133, 2010 NY Slip Op 51338 ) would require a different result, they should no longer be followed.”
“While a medical provider is required to submit to examinations under oath when requested by the insurer (Insurance Department Regulations § 65-1.1), as a condition precedent to payment of a claim, their alleged noncompliance must be established by admissible evidence (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 ).”
Related Articles
- Personal Knowledge Requirements for EUO Non-Appearances: NY Legal Standards
- Alrof citing again – never a good thing
- Personal knowledge is well not too personal
- An ALROF citing
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 decision regarding personal knowledge requirements for EUO no-show affidavits, Insurance Department Regulation § 65-1.1 and related no-fault procedural requirements may have been amended or updated. Additionally, subsequent appellate decisions may have further refined the personal knowledge standards for summary judgment motions in no-fault cases. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments regarding EUO compliance and evidentiary requirements.
