Disqualification not necessary on EUO no-show case

Lotus Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51315(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

“In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The motion was supported by, among other things, an affirmation from a partner in the law firm representing defendant, attesting to plaintiff’s failure to appear.  Plaintiff cross-moved to, among other things, disqualify the law firm representing defendant, pursuant to rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), on the ground that a member of the firm was a necessary witness in this case. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court entered August 3, 2012 granting defendant’s motion and denying plaintiff’s cross motion. A judgment was subsequently entered dismissing the complaint, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 ).

…

“In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s request that defendant’s law firm be disqualified based [*2]on the attorney/witness rule is “moot since, summary judgment having been granted, there will be no trial of this matter” (Quiros v Mount St. Michael Academy, 303 AD2d 185, 186 ; see also Lombino v Town Bd. of Town of Rye, 206 AD2d 462 ). In any event, plaintiff failed to establish that disqualification of defendant’s law firm was warranted (see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437 ; see also e.g. Magnus v Sklover, 95 AD3d 837 ; Matter of Advent Assoc., LLC v Vogt Family Inv. Partners, L.P., 56 AD3d 1023 ; Hudson Val. Mar., Inc. v Town of Cortlandt, 54 AD3d 999 ; Daniel Gale Assoc., Inc. v George, 8 AD3d 608 ;Broadwhite Assoc. v Truong, 237 AD2d 162 ; Matter of Cowen & Co. v Tecnoconsult Holdings, 234 AD2d 86 ; Talvy v American Red Cross in Greater NY, 205 AD2d 143 , affd 87 NY2d 826 ; Kaplan v Maytex Mills, 187 AD2d 565 ).”

Related Articles

• How to Challenge EUO No-Show Denials: When Improper Notice Can Reverse Insurance Denials in New York
• Personal Knowledge Requirements for EUO Non-Appearances: NY Legal Standards
• Understanding EUO Denial: When Insurance Companies Can Substantiate Coverage Denials
• EUO No-Show Consequences: What Happens When You Skip Your Examination Under Oath in New York
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 decision, New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorney disqualification under the attorney-witness rule (22 NYCRR 1200.0) may have been amended, and procedural requirements for EUO no-show cases in no-fault insurance litigation may have evolved. Practitioners should verify current provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct and any updates to no-fault procedural requirements when handling similar disqualification motions.