Why Trust This Analysis
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)
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.
“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.
Related Articles
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
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 No-Show Defense Sustained: Natural Therapy Acupuncture v State Farm
Appellate Term sustains State Farm's EUO no-show defense: scheduling letters mailed per standard office practice and counsel's affirmation proved nonappearance.
Aug 29, 2014
EUO No-Show Defense: Summary Judgment Granted for Failure to Attend in New York
NY court grants summary judgment when claimant fails to attend EUO after proper mailing of scheduling letters.
Aug 19, 2010
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.
Mar 18, 2010
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 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, 2013Was 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 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.
