Allowing non-sense to continue

Last reviewed: September 2026.

Historical note: This 2015 ruling denied summary judgment because the record contained factual disputes; it did not certify every boilerplate affidavit. The 2026 verification hub separates those proof questions from Chapa’s later denial-timing holding.

Two receipt disputes appear in Compas Medical v American Transit, decided August 6, 2015. One concerned whether the insurer received a bill; the others concerned whether the provider answered verification requests. The Appellate Term denied the insurer’s cross-motion without granting the provider summary judgment.

Start with the second cause of action

For the second cause of action, the provider’s billing-manager affidavit established mailing through a standard office practice. The insurer’s no-fault examiner then supplied enough evidence to create a factual issue over receipt of that claim.

That was a dispute about the start of the insurer’s payment-or-denial period. It was not a dispute about whether a later verification response contained every requested document. Combining the two issues makes it difficult to identify what either party actually proved.

The court did not hold that the insurer never received the claim. It found a triable issue. That distinction matters when comparing this case with Longevity Medical Supply, where the insurer’s mere denial of receipt was insufficient on the first cause of action.

The remaining claims raised a different question

On the remaining causes of action, the insurer made a prima facie showing that initial and follow-up verification requests had gone unanswered. The provider’s opposition then raised a factual dispute over whether it had responded.

The opinion describes that opposition as sufficient; it does not reproduce the affidavit or inventory its attachments. It does not identify a universal rule that a single unsupported sentence always defeats summary judgment. It also does not say the court found that the provider had supplied everything requested.

The resulting order removed the insurer’s summary-judgment victory. It left the denial of the provider’s motion in place. Neither party obtained final payment or dismissal on those remaining claims through these motions.

Jason’s original August 2015 criticism

Jason criticized the underlying response affidavit in the following contemporaneous passage:

Of course, the responded to verification was not included in the papers before Civil Court. Rather, the Rybak “I responded to verification” affidavit without anything more was sufficient to defeat the motion. This decision and all the others on the same conclusory bald affidavit are 7 shades short of insane.

The published appellate decision does not independently establish Jason’s description of the motion exhibits. His criticism is preserved as criticism, not restated as the court’s assessment that the affidavit was conclusory or that the provider fabricated a response.

What a mailing affidavit can establish

St. Vincent’s Hospital v Government Employees Insurance, cited by Compas, recognized evidence from an employee familiar with office procedures designed to ensure proper addressing and mailing. A postal receipt is not the only possible means of proving mailing.

The useful question is what the witness can competently explain about the particular mailing or the relevant office practice. A source note should not replace that inquiry with an insurer-versus-provider stereotype. In Compas, the insurer’s own examiner created the factual issue on the second claim.

Healing Health Products supplies another comparison. There, a provider described incoming-mail recording and searches of electronic and physical files. Its denial of receipt raised a factual question about whether the insurer had mailed its requests. The reasoning turns on the evidence and the direction of the mailing, not simply the party’s name.

Keep the different documents separate

A claim form or bill begins one inquiry. A request for additional verification begins another. A response to that request concerns a third mailing, potentially using a different office procedure or witness.

A motion record is easier to assess when each claimed mailing is tied to its sender, recipient, contents and supporting affidavit. This is a way to organize the evidence, not a new checklist purportedly imposed by Compas. A missing exhibit and an inadequate evidentiary foundation are also different objections.

The later Chapa decision concerns the timing of an issued denial. It does not resolve whether a response was mailed in this earlier case or replace the need to prove a verification defense.

The limited takeaway

Compas shows why defeating an opposing motion is not the same as proving one’s own entitlement to judgment. Its second cause of action and remaining causes reached that point by different evidentiary routes.

Read this note with the neighboring Longevity and Compas/Praetorian decisions. Their differing dispositions help identify whether a case concerns an unpaid bill, a response dispute, or a separate IME/EUO defense. That is more useful than treating every affidavit discussion as the same holding.

The procedural history provides another useful limit: the March 2013 trial-court order denied the provider’s motion and granted the insurer’s cross-motion. The August 2015 appellate order changed only the insurer’s result. A report that the provider “won the appeal” therefore should not become a statement that it won payment of the disputed bills.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the verification requirements hub: Chapa, response evidence and denial timing. For the related historical decisions:

• Longevity: two receipt disputes produced different outcomes
• Compas/Praetorian: one verification claim survived, other claims did not
• Daily Medical: the insurer failed to establish mailing
• Solution Bridge: an affidavit contested a 120-day defense

For review of a particular no-fault dispute, request a Free Case Review.