Key Takeaway
Court rejects plaintiff's claim that certified mail was timely sent despite postmark showing late delivery in no-fault insurance notice case.
This article is part of our ongoing timely notice of claim coverage, with 15 published articles analyzing timely notice of claim 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.
Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Elrac, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 51223(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)
(1) “Defendant alleged in its cross motion that it had first received notice of the accident on July 7, 2010 from plaintiff’s assignor’s attorney, and that this was more than 30 days after the date of the accident, which had occurred on June 6, 2010. In opposition to defendant’s cross motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit by Jean Claude Compas, who stated that he had personally timely mailed, by certified mail, an NF-2 application for no-fault benefits together with a notice of injury to defendant on July 6, 2010. He alleged, with regard to mailing, that he personally takes all envelopes in the office to the post office and presents them to the clerk to be weighed and to determine the correct postage, and that he purchases the postage at that point. Plaintiff also submitted a “Track & Confirm” search result indicating that the envelope had been delivered to defendant, but did not submit the certified mail receipt indicating the date on which the envelope had been brought to the post office”
(2) “in further support of its cross motion, defendant submitted a photocopy of the envelope bearing a certified mail number which matches the certified mail number alleged by Dr. Compas to be the certified mail number under which the NF-2 and notice of injury had been mailed. Both the postage and the postmark are dated July 7, 2010.”
(3) “In its brief, plaintiff concedes “the fact that the envelope was postmarked by the Post Office on July 7,” but argues that it was mailed on July 6, 2010. However, this is not a case where a mailing was timely because the envelope was timely dropped into a mail box, even though it was not delivered to the post office and postmarked until a date beyond the prescribed time period (_see_CPLR 2103 ; ; Kresch v Saul, 29 AD3d 863 ). Rather, plaintiff’s own affidavit establishes that the NF-2 and notice of injury were delivered directly to a clerk at the post office for postage and mailing. Both the postage and the postmark are dated July 7, 2010, conclusively establishing that the documents were not mailed until that date. Therefore, they were not submitted to defendant within the time frame required by 11 NYCRR 65-2.4 (b).”
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.
You see, they read the briefs. Plaintiff should have written in his brief: “I know I have a problem but I do not have the courage to admit this is a loser and I should away”. At least on this case (unlike the verification non-receipt cases), the court had the courage to call out chicanery.
Related Articles
- A 30-day notice case that went to trial
- Written proof of loss is when it is mailed
- The prejudice rule in action
- Due consideration an element to a late notice claim
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2015 decision, the regulations governing timely notice requirements under 11 NYCRR 65-2 and related procedural rules may have been amended or clarified through subsequent regulatory updates or case law developments. Practitioners handling no-fault notice disputes should verify current notice provisions, acceptable proof of mailing standards, and any updated documentation requirements that may affect timely filing determinations.
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 Timely notice of claim Analysis
Reasonable Excuse and the 45-Day Rule: Why Clerical Error Won't Save a Misdirected No-Fault Claim
Karina K. Acupuncture v Hertz: a clerical error is no reasonable excuse for mailing NF-3 forms to the wrong insurer under New York's 45-day no-fault claim rule.
Dec 18, 2018
Timely notice
Court ruling reinforces 30-day notice requirement for no-fault claims, with insurance company successfully defending late notice denial under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.
Nov 13, 2018
An oral notice of claim is deemed sufficient notice?
New York court rules oral notification sufficient for no-fault claims, raising questions about written notice requirements and trial strategy in insurance disputes.
Aug 28, 2014
Court of Appeals on Condition Precedent: Hospital NF-5 Submissions and the 30-Day Notice Rule
Presbyterian v Country-Wide: the 2011 NF-5 decision, separate notice and claim deadlines, assignment limits and the reasonable-justification exception.
Oct 14, 2011
The No-Fault One-Year Rule: The First Appellate Decision to Interpret It
Habif v Kemper, the first appellate decision on New York's no-fault one-year rule, turned on a missing stipulated fact about treatment within a year of loss.
Jun 10, 2010
MVAIC created issue of fact
MVAIC's contradictory evidence about notice of claim filing created triable issues, demonstrating why defendants shouldn't introduce conflicting proof in no-fault cases.
May 20, 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 timely notice of claim 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.
