Key Takeaway
Court ruling on insufficient proof that IME scheduling letters were not received in NY no-fault insurance case, establishing mailing presumptions and burden of proof.
By MD, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51232(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by an employee of the company which had been retained by defendant to schedule IMEs, which affidavit established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed in accordance with that office’s standard mailing practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 ). The affidavit submitted by plaintiff was insufficient to rebut the presumption of receipt (see Top Choice Med., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 137, 2011 NY Slip Op 52063 ; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 6 Misc 3d 131, 2005 NY Slip Op 50088 ). “
This same paradigm played out in City Care Acupuncture v. NYCM, 39 Misc.3d(A)(App. Term 1st Dept, 2014) and in American Transit v. Bacchus, Index #: 310450/11.
What is ironic (or maybe not) is that all of these cases with these conclusory affidavits are from the clinics that are associated somewhat with the Safire group, e.g., AB Medical, City Care Chiro, MK Chiro, BY MD, etc. Draw your own conclusions.
Related Articles
- Understanding No-Fault Insurance Mailing Requirements: Lessons from the First Department’s “Venom” Decision
- The Usual Mailing Arguments Have Fallen on Deaf Ears (Again): When Courts Reject Technical Challenges
- Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- A court in Nassau has applied Unitrin through a front door and back door channel
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s no-fault regulations and IME notification procedures may have been subject to regulatory amendments or judicial clarifications regarding mailing presumptions and acceptable proof of non-receipt. Practitioners should verify current provisions under 11 NYCRR Part 65 and recent appellate decisions when challenging IME scheduling notice defenses.
