Additional Verification non-receipt

Daily Medical lost because the record did not show that the requested verification had been provided before suit. The decision does not require a signed delivery receipt in every no-fault case, and it does not make an insurer’s bare assertion of nonreceipt conclusive.

Historical note (September 2026): Daily Medical (2017) concerns proof and premature commencement. The 2026 Chapa decision later rejected a separate 150-day denial cutoff; it did not decide the receipt dispute in this case.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

The appeal’s limited issue

Daily Medical Equipment Distribution Center v Interboro Insurance Co., 56 Misc 3d 135(A), was decided July 21, 2017. The Queens Civil Court had denied the insurer’s cross-motion and left receipt of verification as the remaining trial issue. The insurer appealed.

The Appellate Term found that the insurer had demonstrated nonreceipt and that the provider had not shown submission of the requested verification before the action began. It reversed and granted the cross-motion dismissing the complaint as premature. The opinion also notes that the provider had not challenged the lower court’s finding that the insurer was otherwise entitled to judgment.

The ruling was about the proof and posture of this record. It did not adjudicate a later, completed response or award benefits.

Jason Tenenbaum’s 2017 commentary

The following passage is preserved from the original note; the source status and current-law qualifications appear alongside it.

The verification to be received was an affidavit of receipt of supplies from the EIP. I am curious if the outcome would have changed had a delivery receipt -should it have existed – was annexed to the answering papers,

Jason identified the requested item as an affidavit concerning delivery of supplies. The published opinion does not itself describe that document. His suggestion about attaching a delivery receipt is a question from the original commentary, not a finding that a receipt existed or would necessarily have changed the result.

Receipt can be proved without eyewitness delivery testimony

The earlier page said providers must prove delivery rather than merely mailing. That formulation missed an evidentiary distinction. In New Way v State Farm, a provider employee’s affidavit supported a presumption that the verification was mailed and received. That evidence created a triable issue even though the insurer had offered nonreceipt proof.

Daily Medical did not announce a contrary universal receipt rule. A party may fail because its particular submission does not establish what was sent, when, or to whom. The failure of one record does not exclude every other method of proof.

Likewise, Eagle Surgical’s August 2010 appeal shows that proving timely requests does not itself prove nonreceipt. The insurer’s witness had not supplied the missing factual foundation. Read those opinions together before adopting either “mailing is enough” or “only signed delivery is enough” as a slogan.

Contents and timing need to travel together

As a practical matter, the response packet should identify the requested item and the materials supplied for it. A transmission record linked to an unidentified envelope leaves a different gap from a complete response lacking proof of when it was sent.

Keep the request and follow-up with the response, its attachments, and the evidence explaining the sender’s procedures. If a witness relies on routine mailing practices rather than a remembered mailing, the account should identify those practices and the basis for knowing them. Do not substitute an attorney’s argument for facts the witness has not supplied.

These are ways to make the record intelligible. They do not guarantee a presumption or resolve competing affidavits; those conclusions depend on the evidence and the applicable court’s rules.

Do not confuse supplies with verification about supplies

A receipt showing delivery of equipment and proof showing delivery of a verification response describe different events. Jason’s comment raises the first as a possible response to the insurer’s request. Litigation over whether that response reached the insurer concerns the second.

Before relying on either receipt, ask which event it documents and how it addresses the specific request. The court cannot be assumed to have considered a document absent from the published record.

For requests governed by today’s 120-day provisions, §§ 65-3.5(o) and 65-3.8(b)(3) also recognize written proof of reasonable justification for noncompliance. That qualified response is not interchangeable with silence or a promise to supply something later. The verification hub connects those rules with mailing, partial-response and objection cases.

A genuine evidentiary conflict can require a trial. Calling receipt “disputed” does not create that conflict without supporting proof.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the no-fault verification hub and 2026 Chapa update for the governing framework and case directory. Related case notes:

• Chapa in 2019: the 150-day cutoff reversed in 2026.
• Eagle Surgical in August 2010: the gap in nonreceipt proof.
• New Way: mailing evidence and two different claim results.
• Elmont Open MRI: a factual issue prevented judgment for either side.
• Eagle Surgical in October 2010: an attached but incomplete response.
• Doctor Goldshteyn: partial production and the objection question.

For review of a particular no-fault verification dispute, request a Free Case Review. Keep the requests, responses and relevant claim dates available for that review.