Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 198 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 No-Show Documentation Requirements
In New York no-fault insurance litigation, one of the most common disputes involves examinations under oath (EUOs) and what happens when claimants fail to appear for these scheduled proceedings. Insurance companies must prove that a no-show actually occurred to successfully defend against claims or establish grounds for denial. The question often arises: what type of evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that a claimant failed to appear?
This case provides important guidance on the evidentiary standards courts will accept when insurance companies need to prove a no-show occurred. Understanding these requirements is crucial for both insurance carriers defending claims and medical providers pursuing New York No-Fault Insurance Law benefits. The ruling clarifies that formal documentation combined with testimony can establish the necessary proof, which has implications for how insurance companies should document EUO proceedings and no-shows.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Arco Med. NY, P.C. v Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 52001(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2013)
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.
Court found that an investigator’s affidavit and statements made on the record were sufficient to demonstrate the no-show
“Defendant also established that plaintiff had failed to appear at the duly scheduled EUOs, through both an affidavit by the investigator who had been assigned to conduct the EUOs, and statements made on the record by the same investigator
Key Takeaway
This decision establishes a clear precedent for proving EUO no-shows through a combination of written affidavits and oral testimony from the assigned investigator. Insurance companies can rely on this dual-documentation approach when defending against claims where no-shows have occurred, and it demonstrates that courts don’t require extensive documentation beyond credible investigator testimony and supporting affidavits to establish non-appearance at scheduled examinations.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 analysis of EUO no-show documentation requirements, New York’s no-fault regulations and procedural rules may have been amended, potentially affecting evidentiary standards for proving non-appearance at examinations under oath. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding documentation requirements, acceptable proof standards, and procedural safeguards for EUO proceedings under the most recent regulations and case law.
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
EUO no show sustained
EUO no show sustained - Court grants summary judgment against medical provider when assignor failed to appear for scheduled Examination Under Oath in NY no-fault case.
Jul 8, 2014
A bill delay for an EUO is insufficient to toll the claims determination period
New York court rules that insurance companies cannot use EUO delay letters to extend the 30-day deadline for paying or denying no-fault claims under Insurance Law § 5106.
Jul 8, 2011
EUO no-show case/objective reasons not necessary/ what's next?
NY court rules insurers don't need objective reasons for EUO requests when providers fail to appear, but questions remain about remedies after valid excuses.
Jun 15, 2018
Timely EUO viz GCL 25-a
Court decisions on EUO timing requirements under GCL 25-a when 10th day falls on Sunday, including analysis of follow-up request strategies.
Mar 21, 2016Was 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.
