A verification non receipt decision that does not make sense.

The provider did not win payment in this New Way appeal. Its mailing evidence created factual disputes on four claims, while a separate claim remained dismissed. The decision is about the difference between defeating an insurer’s motion and proving entitlement to judgment.

Historical note: New Way v Praetorian, 2015 NY Slip Op 51632(U), concerns competing motion evidence. Jason’s original criticism of his file is preserved as commentary; the published opinion does not reproduce the disputed affidavit or exhibits. See the current verification hub for the separate response and denial rules.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

What the appellate court changed

In New Way Medical Supply Corp. v Praetorian Insurance Co., decided November 9, 2015, the provider sought summary judgment on five claims. The insurer cross-moved for dismissal. The Civil Court denied the provider’s motion and granted the insurer’s cross-motion.

The Appellate Term changed the result for the first, second, third and fifth causes of action. The insurer had supported its position that requested verification remained outstanding, but the provider’s affidavit supplied a mailing practice sufficient to raise a presumption of receipt. That created a triable issue. The court denied dismissal of those four claims; it did not award them to the provider.

The fourth cause of action had a different result. The insurer established the scheduled IME and EUO nonappearances addressed in the opinion, and the provider did not raise a triable issue. Its dismissal stood. The denial of the provider’s own summary-judgment motion also remained in place.

The opinion and the original file criticism are different sources

Jason’s original paragraph identifies this as his file and objects to what he says the affidavit and attached exhibits actually showed. It also identifies the affiant as a billing manager. The published opinion describes the affiant as the provider’s owner.

Those statements should remain attributed to their respective sources. The opinion available through the official reporter does not include the affidavit or its attachments, so it cannot resolve that factual disagreement for a later reader. Jason’s criticism is part of the history of the note, not a judicial finding that an employee, attorney or court failed to perform a duty.

When citing the case, use the disposition and reasoning the court published. A disagreement with the court’s assessment does not change which party obtained relief or how much of the case remained disputed.

Why mailing evidence mattered

A presumption of receipt permits a court to infer delivery from sufficient evidence of mailing. It is not the same as an admission that the envelope arrived. In this appeal, the provider’s description of its mailing procedure was enough to oppose the insurer’s showing of nonreceipt.

The opinion does not announce that a witness must always personally remember the precise mailing date and also establish a routine office procedure. Evidence based on an actual mailing and evidence of an established mailing practice are different ways a record may support receipt. The particular foundation still has to connect the practice or event to the documents at issue.

That connection explains Jason’s concern about what the envelope contained. A record showing that something was sent does not, by itself, identify every document enclosed. A useful file review compares the request, the cover letter and the actual attachments, then examines the evidence offered to prove transmission.

Contrast a motion with a trial

The Right Aid case discussed with the NF-3 forms reached the Appellate Term after a nonjury trial. The trial court credited the insurer’s witness on nonreceipt. New Way involved whether the papers left a factual question requiring further proceedings.

A party can have enough evidence to prevent summary dismissal without having established that its account will be accepted at trial. The two outcomes should not be compressed into “an affidavit wins” or “the carrier’s records always control.”

The Utica Acupuncture decision supplies another contrast. Its provider described an incoming-mail logging practice but failed to state the result of a search for the actual requests. The missing detail mattered. That is a reason to read the affidavit closely, not to prescribe one stock paragraph for every case.

Keep the current verification questions separate

Today’s claim review also requires the applicable version of DFS Regulation 68. For qualifying document requests, § 65-3.5(o) provides a response period and an alternative of written proof giving reasonable justification for noncompliance. Prescribed NF forms, IMEs and EUOs are excluded from that subdivision.

A factual dispute over a mailed response does not settle whether the request was proper or the response complete. Likewise, a deadline argument does not establish that the requested records were sent. Put each issue beside the document and witness evidence supporting it.

The later TAM Medical Supply decision also denied an insurer summary judgment because the provider’s mailing proof raised a receipt question. Like New Way, TAM left receipt disputed. Neither decision awarded the provider unconditional payment.

Jason’s original commentary

The contemporaneous comments below are preserved as historical commentary, with the case-specific and current-law qualifications explained above.

This was my file. The affidavit never states WHAT was mailed and WHEN it was mailed. The “exhibits” attached include a prescription and confirmation receipt. The verification sought: An invoice for the DME and contemporaneous medical records. None of these were provided, nor was an excuse provide for their non-existence. Also the affiant, Inna Tkachenko is the “billing manager”, not the owner. Yet, Rybak raised an issue of fact? Glad to see somebody reversed an order and DID NOT read the papers. IMHO, the law clerk that writes these decisions needs to really look at these papers a bit more carefully. Not a good day for our judiciary.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the no-fault verification hub and 2026 Chapa update for the governing framework and case directory. Related case notes:

• New Horizon: partial production and premature dismissal.
• Hospital NF-5: the insurer received the version it requested.
• Utica Acupuncture: a missing mail-search result and medical necessity.
• NF-3 and Right Aid: the official provider form and receipt evidence.
• TAM Medical: disputed receipt before the later Chapa ruling.

For review of a particular no-fault verification dispute, request a Free Case Review. Keep the requests, responses and relevant claim dates available for that review.