Key Takeaway
Two conflicting New York Civil Court decisions highlight ongoing debate over EUO no-show requirements and proper practice procedures in no-fault insurance cases.
The landscape of New York no-fault insurance law continues to evolve through conflicting court decisions, particularly regarding examination under oath (EUO) requirements and no-show procedures. Two recent Civil Court decisions from New York County demonstrate the ongoing judicial debate surrounding the precedential value of certain rulings and the proper standards for establishing non-compliance with EUO obligations.
These cases touch on critical issues that frequently arise in no-fault practice: what constitutes adequate proof of a provider’s failure to appear for an EUO, and how courts should handle conflicting precedents when evaluating EUO objections and procedural requirements. The decisions also reflect broader tensions in no-fault litigation regarding the balance between insurance carriers’ investigative rights and healthcare providers’ due process protections.
Understanding these nuances becomes particularly important when dealing with EUO no-show scenarios, where the stakes for both insurers and providers can be significant. The conflicting approaches demonstrated in these decisions underscore the importance of proper documentation and procedural compliance in no-fault cases.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
I am not sure what to make of these two decisions. Read them yourself. I think Alrof is wrong. The Appellate Division in Lucas rejected it and the Appellate Term, Second Department in Quality v. Interboro clearly will not hold it as sacrosanct when a proper practice and procedure affidavit is presented.
Medcare Supply Inc. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2014 NY Slip Op 51421(U)(Civ. Ct. NY Co. 2014)
New Capital Supply, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 24277 (Civ. Ct. NY Co. 2014)
Key Takeaway
These conflicting Civil Court decisions highlight the ongoing uncertainty surrounding EUO no-show procedures in New York no-fault cases. While some courts continue to cite the Alrof decision, higher courts have shown willingness to reject its reasoning when proper procedural affidavits are presented, suggesting that practitioners should focus on thorough documentation rather than relying on potentially outdated precedents.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 analysis of conflicting Civil Court EUO decisions, New York courts have continued to develop jurisprudence around examination under oath procedures and no-show standards. Practitioners should verify current appellate precedents and any regulatory amendments to EUO requirements, as the judicial landscape regarding proof standards for provider non-appearance and procedural compliance may have evolved significantly over the past decade.
