Skip to main content
General Construction Law applies (again)
Timeliness of requests

General Construction Law applies (again)

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Court confirms General Construction Law timing rules apply to no-fault denials, emphasizing proper mailing procedures and calculation of deadlines in insurance disputes.

This article is part of our ongoing timeliness of requests coverage, with 15 published articles analyzing timeliness of requests 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.

No-fault insurance disputes often hinge on precise timing requirements and proper procedural compliance. When insurance companies deny claims, they must follow specific rules about how and when those denials are communicated. The General Construction Law provides crucial guidance on calculating deadlines and determining when notices are considered properly delivered.

In healthcare provider cases, establishing proper mailing procedures can make or break a case. Insurance companies must demonstrate not only that they sent required notices, but that they followed established protocols for doing so. This becomes particularly important when disputes arise about whether denials were timely or contained the necessary legal language.

The interplay between mailing procedures and deadline calculations frequently determines case outcomes. Courts scrutinize both the substance of denials and the procedural mechanics of their delivery, applying General Construction Law principles to resolve timing disputes.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Tam Med. Supply Corp. v Citiwide Auto Leasing, 2016 NY Slip Op 50748(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)

“Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments on appeal, defendant established a proper practice and procedure of mailing of its denials (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 ), and that the denials containing the requisite language had been timely mailed (see General Construction Law §§ 25, 25-a; VS Care Acupuncture v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 141, 2015 NY Slip Op 50164 ; see also General Construction Law § 20 he day from which any specified period of time is reckoned shall be excluded in making the reckoning”]). Plaintiff’s remaining contention as to defendant’s cross motion lacks merit. Thus, we leave the granting of defendant’s cross motion undisturbed.”

Key Takeaway

This decision reinforces that insurance companies can successfully defend denial challenges by demonstrating proper mailing procedures and compliance with General Construction Law timing requirements. The court’s analysis shows how procedural compliance, combined with proper application of deadline calculation rules, can dispose of provider challenges to claim denials. Similar principles apply in cases involving examination under oath procedures where personal knowledge requirements become crucial to establishing proper notice.

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 Timeliness of requests Analysis

Timely notice of claim

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, 2016
EUO issues

EUO no-show defense sustained

Natural Therapy Acupuncture v State Farm: Court sustains EUO no-show defense, reinforcing insurer burden of proof for scheduling letters and attorney presence.

Aug 29, 2014
EUO issues

EUO letters were mailed and the Claimant failed to attend the EUO: summary judgment granted

New York court grants summary judgment when claimant fails to attend properly scheduled EUO after timely mailing of scheduling letters established proper notice.

Aug 19, 2010
EUO issues

EUO Scheduling Letters Must Be Sent Within the Same Time Frame That Exists for Verifying Bills: A Comprehensive Guide for Long Island and NYC Providers

Master EUO scheduling timing requirements for Long Island and NYC providers. Avoid costly billing delays with expert legal guidance. Call 516-750-0595 for compliance support.

Mar 18, 2010
Declaratory Judgment Action

So what did the Second Department mean?

Second Department's Interboro v Clennon decision analysis on no-fault EUO compliance and material breach standards for Long Island personal injury attorneys.

Jan 9, 2014
EUO issues

EUO tolling and reasonableness issues

Eagle Surgical Supply v Allstate case analysis on EUO scheduling timeliness, tolling effects, and reasonableness standards in New York no-fault insurance law.

Dec 8, 2013
View all Timeliness of requests articles

Common Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the deadlines for insurer verification requests?

Under 11 NYCRR §65-3.5, the insurer must issue its initial verification request within 15 business days of receiving a claim. Follow-up requests must be issued within 15 business days of receiving a response. These deadlines are strictly enforced — late requests do not toll the insurer's 30-day obligation to pay or deny the claim.

What happens if the insurer sends a late verification request?

If the insurer misses the 15-business-day deadline, the verification request is untimely and does not toll the 30-day pay-or-deny period. The claim becomes overdue, and the insurer must pay with 2% per month statutory interest. This is one of the most common issues litigated in no-fault cases.

How does timeliness of requests affect claim denials?

An untimely verification request means the insurer lost its right to request that information, and the 30-day clock for paying or denying the claim continued to run. If the insurer then denies the claim based on information it should have requested timely, that denial may be overturned as untimely itself.

Was this article helpful?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.

Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.

Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

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 timeliness of requests 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.

Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Legal Resources

Understanding New York Timeliness of requests Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how timeliness of requests cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For timeliness of requests matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review