Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 197 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.
No-fault insurance carriers must follow strict procedural requirements when requesting examinations under oath (EUOs) from medical providers. One critical requirement often overlooked is proving that EUO requests were sent within the proper timeframe. This procedural misstep can have significant consequences, as demonstrated in a 2014 Appellate Term decision that illustrates how carriers can lose their right to deny claims based on EUO no-shows when they fail to establish proper timing.
The case also highlights an interesting judicial observation about outdated legal precedents still being cited in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases, particularly regarding EUO procedures that have evolved significantly over time.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
When was the last time the Appellate Division cited Westchester v. Lincoln? This Court seeks citing dinosaurs, which have been extinct for awhile now.
Clove Med. Supply, Inc. v Ameriprise Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50357(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
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.
In support of its motion, defendant was required, but failed, to demonstrate that its initial and follow-up requests for EUOs of plaintiff had been timely mailed (see Insurance Department Regulations §§ 65-3.5 ; 65-3.6 ), as the record is devoid of any reference to the dates on which defendant had received plaintiff’s claim forms. Consequently, defendant failed to demonstrate that it had tolled its time to pay or deny the claims, and, thus, that it is not precluded from raising its proffered defense that plaintiff had failed to appear for an EUO (see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 ; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 ). In view of the foregoing, the Civil Court properly denied defendant’s motion”
Key Takeaway
Insurance carriers must maintain detailed records proving when they received claim forms and when EUO requests were mailed. Without this documentation, carriers cannot establish that their EUO requests were timely, effectively waiving their right to deny claims based on provider no-shows. This case reinforces that procedural compliance is just as important as substantive defenses in no-fault litigation.
Legal Update (February 2026): The EUO procedural requirements under Insurance Department Regulations §§ 65-3.5 and 65-3.6 referenced in this 2014 analysis may have been subject to regulatory amendments or clarifications in the intervening years. Given the evolving nature of no-fault insurance regulations and EUO procedures, practitioners should verify current timing requirements and procedural standards before relying on the specific regulatory provisions discussed in this post.
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
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, 2016
When a delay letter is not good enough
Court rules delay letters requesting EUO without verification insufficient to toll 30-day payment deadline in NY no-fault insurance cases - key requirements explored.
Aug 6, 2014
EUO no-show from the First
Court ruling confirms insurers can deny no-fault claims when assignors fail to appear for properly noticed examinations under oath (EUOs).
Feb 24, 2012
Objective reasons not necessary to prove an EUO no-show defense
Recent NY court rulings clarify insurers don't need objective reasons to request EUOs when proving no-show defense, though proper objections can change this dynamic.
Nov 25, 2018Was 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.
