Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing no-fault coverage, with 271 published articles analyzing no-fault 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.
In New York’s no-fault insurance system, insurance companies frequently require injured parties to attend Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) to evaluate claims. When scheduling these examinations, insurers must provide proper notice to claimants. However, seemingly minor administrative errors in the mailing process can have significant legal consequences, as demonstrated in a recent appellate court decision.
The case of Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Citiwide Auto Leasing illustrates how attention to detail in correspondence can make or break a no-fault insurance case. This ruling provides important guidance for both healthcare providers and insurance companies navigating the complex requirements of New York’s no-fault system.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Citiwide Auto Leasing, 2014 NY Slip Op 51801(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“The record establishes that, after plaintiff had submitted its claim, defendant sent plaintiff’s assignor letters scheduling the IMEs in question. However, because the address to which the IME scheduling letters were sent used an incorrect zip code, defendant’s proof was insufficient to give rise to a presumption of receipt”
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.
This could be the only time that using certified mail (in conjunction with regular mail) can have an advantage. Invariably, correspondence sent to the wrong zip-code often gets properly delivered. Yet, there is a definite absence of proof issue in these types of cases.
Key Takeaway
When scheduling IMEs in no-fault cases, insurance companies must ensure complete accuracy in mailing addresses, including zip codes. An incorrect zip code can defeat the legal presumption of receipt, even if the letter was ultimately delivered. This technical deficiency can undermine an insurer’s defense and strengthen a healthcare provider’s position in collection actions.
Related Articles
- Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance: Rights, Consequences, and Strategic Considerations
- No-Fault Verification Requirements: When Partial Compliance Isn’t Enough
- The CPLR 3212(g) paradigm
- Understanding CPLR 3212(a): Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 decision, New York’s no-fault regulations and procedural requirements for IME scheduling notices may have been modified through regulatory amendments or updated Department of Financial Services guidelines. Practitioners should verify current mailing requirements, notice provisions, and any changes to presumptions of receipt under the most recent no-fault regulations.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York's no-fault insurance system, established under Insurance Law Article 51, is one of the most complex insurance frameworks in the country. Every motorist must carry Personal Injury Protection coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of fault, up to $50,000 per person.
But insurers routinely deny valid claims using peer reviews, EUO scheduling tactics, fee schedule reductions, and coverage defenses. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has handled over 100,000 no-fault cases since 2002 — from initial claim submissions through arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, trials in Civil Court and Supreme Court, and appeals to the Appellate Term and Appellate Division. Jason Tenenbaum is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
His 2,353+ published legal articles on no-fault practice are cited by attorneys throughout New York. Whether you are dealing with a medical necessity denial, an EUO no-show defense, a fee schedule dispute, or a coverage question, this article provides the kind of detailed case-law analysis that helps practitioners and claimants understand exactly where the law stands.
About This Topic
New York No-Fault Insurance Law
New York's no-fault insurance system requires every driver to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the accident. But insurers routinely deny, delay, and underpay valid claims — using peer reviews, IME no-shows, and fee schedule defenses to avoid paying providers and injured claimants. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has litigated thousands of no-fault arbitrations and court cases since 2002.
271 published articles in No-Fault
Keep Reading
More No-Fault Analysis
Car Accident Recorded Statement in New York: Should You Give One?
The at-fault driver's adjuster wants a recorded statement within days of a New York car accident — and that call is designed to weaken your case.
Apr 5, 2026
Who Pays Car Accident Medical Bills in New York? A Step-by-Step Guide
New York no-fault PIP, primary health insurance, Medicaid/Medicare, and litigation liens — the full payment ladder for car-accident medical bills.
Apr 5, 2026
An interesting article from David Barshay in today’s law journal – an interesting read
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum highlights David Barshay's important analysis of New York's new fee schedule changes and their impact on no-fault insurance law.
Dec 9, 2010
The if I was there EUO dance
Court decision analyzing EUO no-show affirmations in no-fault insurance cases, questioning sufficiency standards under Parisien v Ameriprise ruling.
Jul 13, 2022
Interesting discussion on NF-10s
Court ruling clarifies that insurance companies can use substantially similar NF-10 denial forms and must prove proper mailing in no-fault cases.
Jun 4, 2021
It was NOT mailed
No-fault insurance case highlights burden of proof for proper mailing.
Apr 18, 2016Was 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 no-fault 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.
