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 in New York No-Fault Cases
The ongoing debate over what constitutes sufficient proof of a plaintiff’s failure to appear at an Examination Under Oath (EUO) continues to create challenges in New York No-Fault Insurance Law cases. The recent SP Chiropractic decision demonstrates how courts continue to apply the controversial Alrof standard, even when insurance companies repeatedly submit inadequate documentation.
EUO proceedings are a critical component of no-fault insurance claims, where insurers can examine claimants under oath about their injuries and treatment. When a plaintiff fails to appear for these examinations, insurers must provide proper documentation to support their denial of coverage. However, as this case illustrates, many insurance companies struggle with meeting the personal knowledge requirements that courts have established.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
SP Chiropractic, P.C. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50952(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.
Because defendant failed to submit proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff 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 ; Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 130, 2013 NY Slip Op 51123 ).”
Seems to be the same cohorts that draw Alrof citations. In my mind, after you lose, change the affidavits. Appealing the same losing affidavits is insane and helps nobody. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and to expect a different result.
Oh and do not think I for a second think Alrof is a correct statement of the law. American Transit v. Lucas proved that wrong. But this Court is a bit “thick” at time and unless its own precedent gets overruled,
Key Takeaway
This case reinforces the Alrof requirement that insurance companies must provide affidavits from individuals with personal knowledge of EUO no-shows. The repeated failures by the same insurance companies suggest a systemic issue with their documentation practices, leading to predictable denials of their summary judgment motions.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and EUO procedural requirements may have been subject to regulatory amendments or updated judicial interpretations. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding personal knowledge standards for EUO non-appearance documentation and any modifications to the Alrof standard cited in this analysis.
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
Problems in the Progressive affidavits (again)
Progressive's flawed EUO scheduling affidavits fail to prove proper mailing, allowing medical providers to skip examinations and creating enforcement challenges.
May 10, 2016
IME and EUO issues under Unitrin
Court ruling on IME no-show denials under Unitrin precedent - insurer's right to retroactively deny claims when assignor fails to appear for scheduled examination
Oct 28, 2014
The failure to respond to an EUO letter non-suits another DME provider
DME provider loses case after failing to respond to EUO letter, with court ruling that non-compliance permits denial of all claims, not just pending ones.
May 16, 2012
The provider must show up
New York no-fault insurance case where provider lost benefits for failing to appear at EUO. Court ruled insurer met burden for summary judgment dismissal.
Mar 2, 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.
