Key Takeaway
Court denies plaintiff's motion in no-fault case due to failed verification compliance and assignor's failure to appear for required IMEs and EUOs.
Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51467(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)
“The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion, granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s third cause of action as premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the remaining causes of action due to the failure of plaintiff’s assignor to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs) and examinations under oath (EUOs).
In support of the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s third cause of action, defendant submitted an affidavit by its claims examiner which established that defendant had timely mailed its verification request and follow-up verification request (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 ). Defendant demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and thus that plaintiff’s third cause of action is premature (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 ; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 ). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Civil Court properly granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing this cause of action.”
My case. Thank you. On this one, there was no affidavit attempting to explain the verification compliance.
Related Articles
- Additional verification not produced is probative of nothing
- Triable issue of fact as to non-appearance?
- EUO no-show and verification non-receipt
- No-show failed the Alrof test
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2015 post, 11 NYCRR 65-3 has undergone several amendments affecting verification requirements, EUO procedures, and IME scheduling protocols. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding notice requirements, timeframes for compliance, and procedural safeguards, as regulatory changes may have modified the standards applied in no-show determinations.
