Key Takeaway
Court finds no reasonable excuse for default in no-fault declaratory judgment action where medical providers failed to respond despite proper service.
DTG Operations, Inc. v Excel Imaging, P.C., 2014 NY Slip Op 05030 (1st Dept. 2014)
(1) “In this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the medical provider defendants have no right to collect no-fault benefits for medical services allegedly provided to the claimant defendants, defendants-respondents failed to offer a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious defenseIn this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the medical provider defendants have no right to collect no-fault benefits for medical services allegedly provided to the claimant defendants, defendants-respondents failed to offer a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious defense”
(2) “In support of their motion to vacate the default, defendants-respondents submitted, among other things, the affidavit of their office and billing manager who stated that she “d not recall” any court papers on this matter, but did not deny receiving any. She further stated that the office location had moved, but did not specify whether that move occurred before or after the date reflected in the affidavits of service. She further asserted that the “summons” did not provide any information from which to link this action to the claimant treated by defendants-respondents. However, the concise, 10-page complaint named defendants-respondents and claimants as defendants in the caption and plainly states that claimants sought medical treatment from defendants-respondents for which plaintiff sought a declaration that defendants-respondents were not entitled to reimbursement.”
(3) “Further, defendants-respondents’ proffered defense, that the examinations under oath requested by plaintiff are improper, is contrary to law” (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1).
Related Articles
- First Department upholds EUO DJ victory
- EUO no-show DJ is successful (for the most part)
- DJ denial reversed: A misspelling can be excused, and notice to the attorney is enough
- Legal Document Quality Issues in New York Personal Injury Cases: Lessons from Global Liberty Insurance v. Tyrell
- Denial of Claims practice area
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations under 11 NYCRR 65-1 have undergone various amendments, and procedural requirements for declaratory judgment actions and default proceedings may have been modified. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding reasonable excuse standards, service requirements, and motion practice in no-fault declaratory judgment cases.
