Key Takeaway
Court upholds no-fault insurer's EUO denial after provider failed to challenge examination requests. Key ruling on EUO justification requirements in NY.
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.
Vladenn Med. Supply Corp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50928(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“With respect to plaintiff’s contention that defendant failed to demonstrate justification for its EUO requests, in a similar case involving the failure of a provider’s assignor to appear for EUOs, the Appellate Division, Second Department, has held that, to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that a provider’s assignor failed to appear for an EUO, an insurer need only establish “as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an from the assignor, who had allegedly been injured in a motor vehicle accident, that the assignor twice failed to appear, and that the issued a timely denial of the claims arising from the treatment of the assignor” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 ). A review of the record in Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon reveals that, in that case, the provider argued, as does plaintiff herein, that the insurer’s motion should have been denied pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f), as the provider had not received discovery regarding the reasonableness of defendant’s EUO requests, and that, even if there had been a failure to appear for two duly scheduled EUOs, the insurer had to show that the failure to appear constituted willful obstruction of the insurer’s investigation. In finding for the insurer, the Appellate Division, Second Department, stated the following:
“the failed to establish that summary judgment was premature in light of outstanding discovery. A party who contends that a summary judgment motion is premature is required to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant’ (Cajas-Romero v Ward, 106 AD3d 850, 852 ; see CPLR 3212 ). Here, in support of their contention that the motion was premature, the did not establish what information they hoped to discover that would demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact” (113 AD3d at 597).
Similarly, in the instant case, plaintiff “did not establish what information hoped to discover that would demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact” (id.; cf. American Tr. Ins. Co. v Jaga Med. Servs., P.C., 128 AD3d 441 ).”
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.
I am responsible for Clennon and Jaga. Thank you, you’re welcome. I need to find a case to appeal so that Jaga reads more like Clennon.
Related Articles
- How to Challenge EUO No-Show Denials: When Improper Notice Can Reverse Insurance Denials in New York
- Understanding EUO Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
- EUO No-Show Consequences: What Happens When You Skip Your Examination Under Oath in New York
- Understanding EUO Denial: When Insurance Companies Can Substantiate Coverage Denials
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
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 Objective Basis Required for EUO Requests in New York No-Fault Cases
Appellate Term confirms NY no-fault insurers need no objective reason to demand an EUO — only proper notice, two no-shows, and a timely denial. Analysis.
Dec 18, 2018
EUO fee not a condition precedent to appearance at EUO
Court rules EUO fee demands are improper - providers cannot require upfront payment before attending examination under oath in NY no-fault cases.
May 10, 2016
Alrof”t” (read the cited to decisions)
Two conflicting New York Civil Court decisions highlight ongoing debate over EUO no-show requirements and proper practice procedures in no-fault insurance cases.
Oct 4, 2014
The failure to respond to an EUO letter non-suits another DME provider
DME provider loses case after failing to respond to EUO letter, with court ruling that non-compliance permits denial of all claims, not just pending ones.
May 16, 2012Was 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.
