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.
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:
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.
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.
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
Objective justification not necessary
New York court rules insurers don't need objective justification for EUO requests under No-Fault Regulation 68, emphasizing compliance importance.
May 27, 2015
EUO preclusion and EBT’s based upon preserved box #18 defense
New York court ruling on EUO preclusion and EBT rights based on preserved box 18 defense in no-fault insurance cases - key timing requirements explained.
Dec 8, 2013
The second EUO no-show is operative
Court clarifies that insurers can deny claims after second EUO no-show, with implications for providers who miss multiple examination appointments in complex cases.
Mar 17, 2021
EUO letter to Assignor did toll time to pay or deny
EUO letter to assignor tolls time to pay or deny no-fault claims. Key requirements: timely EUO scheduling letter plus delay notice to provider.
Jul 26, 2017Was 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.
