Key Takeaway
NY appeals court rejects EUO firm's affirmations lacking personal knowledge in three no-fault insurance cases, highlighting procedural deficiencies in summary judgment motions.
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.
IMA Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50926(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the affirmation submitted in support of defendant’s cross motion by a partner in the law firm retained by defendant to conduct EUOs of plaintiff was not made on personal knowledge and, therefore, defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint
Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Hertz Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50909(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the affirmation by a partner in the law firm retained by defendant to conduct examinations under oath (EUOs) of plaintiff failed to establish, as a matter of law, defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as defendant’s cross-moving papers did not contain proof by someone with personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff for the EUOs in question
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.
New Beginnings Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50916(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
“Contrary to defendant’s contention, the initial affirmation submitted in support of defendant’s cross motion by a partner in the law firm retained by defendant to conduct examinations under oath (EUOs) of plaintiff’s assignor was not made on personal knowledge and, therefore, defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint”
Maybe instead of speaking at NICB seminars (I have been at a few) and broadcasting their prowess at stopping fee splitting and self referrals (see New Way v. Allstate), this firm should have a better organizational process in mailing EUO letters and recording no-shows. I have trouble fathoming why any insurance company would want to give business to this entity when they cannot substantiate their work product. I have to imagine Civil Court judges and arbitrators must say “this firm”, oh they cannot prove the no show. That is what I think, and seeing who is representing some of these carriers nowadays (these are 2013 decisions that are being reversed), clients see things the same way as me.
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 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
EUO no show sustained
EUO no show sustained - Court grants summary judgment against medical provider when assignor failed to appear for scheduled Examination Under Oath in NY no-fault case.
Jul 8, 2014
EUO – No need to highlight the information
New York court rules that EUO scheduling letters don't need to conspicuously highlight information, clarifying requirements under Insurance Department Regulations.
Oct 19, 2011
Dilemma and dogma
Court ruling on EUO timing requirements in NY no-fault cases - insurer failed to prove compliance with 15-day deadline for examination under oath notices.
Jun 30, 2018
EUO Scheduling Letters: Allstate Fails to Prove Timely Mailing
Appellate Term holds Allstate failed to prove its EUO scheduling letters were timely mailed, sinking its no-show defense in this no-fault first-party benefits suit.
Mar 21, 2016Was 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.
