Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 197 published articles analyzing euo issues 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.
Understanding the nuances of Examinations Under Oath (EUOs) in New York No-Fault Insurance Law can mean the difference between a successful claim and a denied one. EUOs are formal proceedings where insurance companies can question claimants under oath about their injuries and treatment. When scheduling conflicts arise, both parties often need to reschedule these examinations.
However, there’s an important legal distinction between mutually agreed rescheduling and outright failure to appear. A recent Appellate Term decision provides crucial guidance on this issue, particularly when EUO no-shows occur and how insurance companies can properly establish non-compliance. This case demonstrates how courts analyze the difference between legitimate rescheduling requests and situations where claimants simply fail to appear without justification.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 51644(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2015)
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.
“While the rescheduling of the initial (April 10, 2012) EUO – by mutual agreement of the parties prior to the scheduled date – did not constitute a failure to appear (see DVS Chiropractic, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 138, 2012 NY Slip Op 51443), defendant established that the assignor subsequently failed to appear at the time of the rescheduled EUO (May 2, 2012) and follow-up EUO (May 21, 2012). Contrary to Civil Court’s determination, defendant’s rescheduling of the May 2, 2012 EUO upon the assignor’s failure to appear at that EUO, constituted a follow-up EUO request (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.6).”
Key Takeaway
This decision establishes that mutual rescheduling agreements don’t constitute EUO failures, but actual no-shows do. Insurance companies can properly establish non-compliance when claimants fail to appear at rescheduled examinations, and subsequent rescheduling by the insurer after a no-show constitutes a valid follow-up EUO request under New York regulations. Understanding this distinction is crucial for both providers and insurers in no-fault insurance disputes.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2015, the regulatory framework governing EUO procedures under 11 NYCRR 65-3 may have been subject to amendments or clarifications, particularly regarding scheduling requirements and non-compliance determinations. Additionally, subsequent appellate decisions may have further refined the legal standards for distinguishing between acceptable rescheduling and failure to appear scenarios. Practitioners should verify current regulatory provisions and recent case law developments when advising clients on EUO compliance matters.
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 EUO issues Analysis
EUO No-Show: Attorney Affirmation Sufficient Despite Time Lapse Between No-Shows and Execution
Appellate Term reverses Civil Court, holding that an attorney's affirmation attesting to plaintiff's failure to appear at EUOs was sufficient despite.
Feb 25, 2026
EUO no-show – correct statement of law
Court ruling clarifies that insurers cannot enforce EUO requests sent more than 30 days after receiving claims, making late requests nullities under New York no-fault law.
May 22, 2021
No show not susbtantitated
Court ruling highlights insurance companies must prove they actually appeared at scheduled EUOs when claiming assignor failed to show up for examination.
Aug 24, 2015
EUO no-show mailing and personal knowledge substantiated
Court ruling confirms that proper mailing procedures and attorney's personal knowledge can establish EUO no-shows, setting important precedent for no-fault insurance disputes.
Dec 19, 2013
Validity of EUO, Appellate Term, 2d Dept: Take two
Expert analysis of EUO validity issues in NY insurance law. Long Island insurance attorney Jason Tenenbaum explains appellate decisions. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 26, 2009
Mutual rescheduling issues
New York court ruling on mutual EUO rescheduling: why agreed postponements don't constitute failure to appear under no-fault insurance law.
Jul 31, 2017Was 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 euo issues 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.
