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 Requirements and the Problematic Alrof Precedent
When insurance companies seek to deny no-fault benefits based on a patient’s failure to appear for an Examination Under Oath (EUO), they must meet specific evidentiary requirements. A recent Appellate Term decision highlights the continued judicial reliance on the controversial Alrof case, despite its questionable legal foundation.
The case of Muhammad Tahir, M.D., P.C. v Hertz Claims Mgt demonstrates how courts continue to apply strict personal knowledge standards for proving EUO non-appearances. This requirement has created significant challenges for insurance carriers seeking to establish valid defenses based on EUO objections and procedural failures.
Understanding these evidentiary standards is crucial for both healthcare providers and insurers navigating New York No-Fault Insurance Law, particularly when dealing with cases involving substantiated no-shows.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
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.
Muhammad Tahir, M.D., P.C. v Hertz Claims Mgt.,2014 NY Slip Op 50625(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion.”
“Because defendant failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff’s assignor for the EUOs in question, defendant’s motion was properly denied (see Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 50458 ).”
If you follow this blog, you will know that “Alrof” is not really good law. For reasons I am not even going to discuss on here, I ended up challenging this proposition of law and prevailed on it. The First Department (ATIC v. Lucas), the Second Department (Interboro v. Clennon) and this Court (Quality v. Interboro; Ortho Products v. Interboro) have all found that Alrof does not mean what it says.
But, in this Court, if you wish to resurrect W&Z v. Amex, the affidavit from the “partner” had better lead that horse to water and make it drink it. And, it is not the quantity of verbiage that is in the affirmation which will win the day, it is how you present it, lay it out and assert it.
Key Takeaway
Despite multiple appellate courts rejecting the Alrof precedent’s interpretation of personal knowledge requirements for EUO no-shows, some trial courts continue citing it. Success in these cases depends not on lengthy affirmations but on precise presentation of evidence with proper foundation and clear assertion of the relevant facts.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2014, New York’s EUO procedures and evidentiary standards may have evolved through regulatory amendments, updated court rules, or subsequent appellate decisions that could affect the personal knowledge requirements for proving non-appearance. The reliance on Alrof precedent and related evidentiary standards discussed here may have been clarified or modified by more recent case law. Practitioners should verify current procedural requirements and evidentiary standards when handling EUO non-appearance 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
An EUO defense that was precluded
Court rules insurance company's EUO defense was precluded due to untimely scheduling letter sent more than 30 days after receiving claims, highlighting critical timing...
Jul 26, 2017
Nonsensical appeal
Court rules EUO scheduling letters untimely when requested beyond 15 business days, making them nullities under New York No-Fault Regulations despite insurer's appeal.
Aug 24, 2015
EUO no-show mailing and personal knowledge substantiated
Court ruling confirms that proper mailing procedures and attorney's personal knowledge can establish EUO no-shows, setting important precedent for no-fault insurance disputes.
Dec 19, 2013
Validity of EUO, Appellate Term, 2d Dept: Take two
Expert analysis of EUO validity issues in NY insurance law. Long Island insurance attorney Jason Tenenbaum explains appellate decisions. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 26, 2009Was 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.
