Key Takeaway
Village Medical Supply won dismissal for the insurer: one timely denial followed claim receipt, the other followed receipt of requested verification.
This article is part of our ongoing additional verification coverage, with 234 published articles analyzing additional verification 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.
Last reviewed: September 2026.
Historical note: Village Medical accepted timely-denial proof on its 2014 record; Gaines (2025, First Department) did not require timely disclaimer for the properly noticed pre-claim IMEs before it, a distinction that requires attention to the forum.
Village Medical Supply involved two claims received after missed IMEs. One denial followed receipt of the claim; the other followed receipt of requested verification. The insurer proved both timely and obtained dismissal on appeal.
Jason’s original note
Village Med. Supply, Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50631(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
This is the second case under the Appellate Term’s Westchester/Lincoln jurisprudence which addressed the case where the IME no-show default occurs before the verification is received.
“Defendant alleged that it had denied one of these claims within 30 days of its receipt and that it had requested verification on the other claim and then denied that claim within 30 days of its receipt of the requested verification”
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.
Two claims, different verification records
In Village Medical Supply v NY Central Mutual, decided April 7, 2014, one claim was denied within 30 days of receipt. For the other, the carrier requested verification and denied the claim within 30 days after that verification arrived. The decision does not supply a complete dated chronology or describe the provider as having made a waiver argument.
The carrier supplied evidence of the vendor’s standard mailing practice, the examining professionals’ accounts of nonattendance, and the mailing of verification requests and denials. The court also found compliance with the follow-up requirements of 11 NYCRR 65-3.6(b). The result depended on that record; requesting verification after a missed examination was not, by itself, fatal.
This is not permission to postpone a denial indefinitely. Section 65-3.8 measures the payment-or-denial period from proof of claim, including requested verification, subject to the regulation’s conditions. An ordinary investigation letter is not necessarily a qualifying verification request.
The modern comparison is Gaines (2025), a First Department pre-claim IME case in which timely disclaimer was unnecessary. Keep its coverage analysis separate from the timely-denial proof accepted in this 2014 Second Department case.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
Start with the IME no-show case directory.
- Total Chiropractic: late post-claim IME, neither side wins judgment
- City Anesthesia: pre-claim IMEs and the NF-2
- Four 2011 insurer wins with timely-denial proof
- Sharp View: insufficient proof of mailing
- Harmonic: the Unitrin coverage analysis
For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the scheduling letters, claim chronology and motion papers.
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.
About This Topic
Additional Verification in No-Fault Claims
Under New York's no-fault regulations, insurers may request additional verification of a claim within specified time limits. The timeliness, scope, and reasonableness of verification requests — and the consequences of a claimant's failure to respond — are among the most litigated issues in no-fault practice. These articles examine the regulatory framework for verification requests, court decisions on compliance, and the interplay between verification delays and claim determination deadlines.
234 published articles in Additional Verification
Keep Reading
More Additional Verification Analysis
No Denial Required When Provider Fails to Respond to Verification Within 120 Days
Chapa v MVAIC rejected a 150-day denial deadline, not the need to prove a verification defense. Read the 2026 decision and the historical case directory.
Feb 25, 2026
Simple addition is insufficient
Jodi Jacobs's 2021 mixed appeal: four claims dismissed, one fee balance unresolved, and why the schedule alone did not prove correct code use.
May 22, 2021
Verification lack of response affirmed/Judge Ciaffa’s opinion prevails
Judge Ciaffa's verification requirements affirmed: NY court rules insurers must send verification requests to claimants, not attorneys, under no-fault regulations.
Mar 13, 2017
Boilerplate affidavit mandates triable issue of fact on verification issue
Three 2015 verification-affidavit decisions compared: who moved, what remained disputed, and why neither a form affidavit nor nonreceipt decides every case.
May 27, 2015
Conclusory denial of receipt of IME letter is insufficient to stave off summary judgment
Court rules that simply denying receipt of an IME notice letter isn't enough to defeat summary judgment in no-fault insurance cases without additional evidence.
Apr 1, 2013
Equitable considerations now invade no-fault law
Infinity Health Products: the 2009 early follow-up ruling, the insurer's actual win, and how later verification cases fit the historical decision.
Nov 20, 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 additional verification 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.
