Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 200 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 Personal Knowledge Requirements in EUO No-Show Cases
When insurance companies seek to deny claims based on an insured’s failure to appear for an Examination Under Oath (EUO), they must prove that non-appearance with evidence from someone having “personal knowledge.” The Appellate Term’s decision in Ortho Products & Equipment v. Interboro Insurance provides important guidance on what constitutes sufficient proof, particularly regarding the level of detail required in business practice affidavits.
This case builds upon established precedent while clarifying that properly detailed affidavits can meet the personal knowledge standard - a significant development for practitioners handling New York No-Fault Insurance Law matters. The decision also references the ongoing tension between different approaches to proving EUO non-appearances, particularly in relation to earlier cases like Alrof and Bright Care.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Ortho Prods. & Equip., Inc. v Interboro Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 52054(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.
“It further established that its EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed and that Mr. Robinson and Mr. Forbes had each failed to appear at either of their duly scheduled EUOs (see Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 146, 2012 NY Slip Op 51628 )”
(DISSENTING MEMORANDUM)
“For the reasons set forth in my dissent in Quality Psychological Servs., P.C. v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co. (36 Misc 3d 146, 2012 NY Slip Op 51628 ), I find that defendant failed to submit evidence from someone with personal knowledge establishing the nonappearance of the assignor for the scheduled examinations under oath”
In this case, the “personal knowledge” was based upon an affidavit more detailed and circumspect than the affidavits circulating around in Alrof and Bright Care. The case is really an application of ATIC v. Lucas, regarding “personal knowledge.” While I would not say Alrof is dead, I would note that a properly detailed business practice affidavit will suffice to demonstrate the no show.
Key Takeaway
The Ortho Products decision demonstrates that while personal knowledge requirements for proving EUO no-shows remain stringent, insurance companies can meet this standard through sufficiently detailed business practice affidavits. The level of detail and specificity in the affidavit is crucial - generic or boilerplate affidavits may not suffice, but properly substantiated no-show documentation can establish the necessary foundation for claim denials.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York’s EUO procedures and personal knowledge requirements may have evolved through subsequent appellate decisions, regulatory amendments, or changes to Insurance Department guidelines regarding proof standards for non-appearance claims. Practitioners should verify current case law and procedural requirements, as courts have continued to refine the standards for establishing personal knowledge in EUO denial cases.
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 Proof Fails Without Personal Knowledge: TAM Med. Supply v Ameriprise
Appellate Term denies Ameriprise summary judgment on its EUO no-show defense because no affiant with personal knowledge proved the provider's nonappearance.
Oct 13, 2016
No Objective Basis Required for an EUO Request Under No-Fault Regulation 68
Appellate Term confirms no provision of NY No-Fault Regulation 68 requires an insurer to show objective standards for requesting an EUO. Metro Psychological.
Apr 14, 2015
The NF-2 and the letters did not match
Court ruling on IME scheduling letters highlights importance of consistent procedures in New York no-fault insurance cases when addresses don't match NF-2 forms.
Jul 16, 2013
Insurance Company EUO Requirements: When No Objective Basis is Necessary – New York No-Fault Law
Learn when NY insurance companies can demand EUOs without objective basis. Expert analysis of Actual Chiropractic v State Farm. Call 516-750-0595.
Oct 17, 2019Was 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.
