Key Takeaway
New York court upholds insurer's declaratory judgment after claimant's EUO no-show, confirming proper notice requirements and compliance with scheduling regulations.
This article is part of our ongoing declaratory judgments coverage, with 234 published articles analyzing declaratory judgments 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.
Hertz Vehs. LLC v Significant Care, PT, P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 00456 (1st Dept. 2018)
The affidavit of the Hertz claims handler personally assigned to this claim, as corroborated by the NF-10 denial of claim form (Wausau Bus. Ins. Co. v 3280 Broadway Realty Co. LLC, 47 AD3d 549, 549 ; see also American Tr. Ins. Co. v Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841, 842 ), stated that the date Pavlova’s bill was received by the insurer was July 18, 2014. Hertz therefore established its compliance with 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(b) by generating the first EUO scheduling letter within 15 days of receipt of the provider’s bill, and compliance with 11 NYCRR 65-3.6(b), by generating the second EUO scheduling letter less than 10 days after the first nonappearance on August 7, 2014.
Hertz also established proof of mailing because it included an affidavit of service, which was executed by the person who mailed the EUO notices and who attested that each was mailed by regular mail to the address provided on the claimant’s claim form, as well as to claimant’s attorney, in a “postpaid, properly addressed wrapper, in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service within the State of New York” (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423, 424 ; see also Deluca v Smith, 146 AD3d 732, 732 ).
Pavlova’s argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the second EUO nonappearance date was not a non-appearance because the claimant’s counsel was present, and because there was a statement on the record which not only acknowledged claimant’s nonappearance, but also agreed to reschedule the EUO, is unpreserved and unavailing.
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.
Related Articles
- Understanding New York No-Fault Insurance EUO Requirements: Why DFS Does Not Approve Improper Disclaimers
- Requirements for proving compliance with EUO scheduling regulations
- How to Challenge EUO No-Show Denials: When Improper Notice Can Reverse Insurance Denials in New York
- When declaratory judgment claims fail in EUO cases
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2018 post, the EUO scheduling and notice requirements under 11 NYCRR 65-3 may have been subject to regulatory amendments or clarifications. Practitioners should verify the current timing requirements in sections 65-3.5(b) and 65-3.6(b) for initial EUO scheduling and follow-up notices after non-appearance, as well as any updates to proof of service standards for EUO notices.
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.
About This Topic
Declaratory Judgment Practice in New York
Declaratory judgment proceedings provide a mechanism for parties to obtain binding judicial determinations of their legal rights and obligations. In insurance litigation, declaratory judgments are commonly sought to resolve disputes over policy coverage, fraud allegations, and the enforceability of policy conditions. These articles analyze declaratory judgment procedure, the standards courts apply, and the strategic implications of seeking or defending against declaratory relief in New York insurance cases.
234 published articles in Declaratory Judgments
Keep Reading
More Declaratory Judgments 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-show substantiated
MDJ Medical: insurer wins dismissal after proving IME and EUO notice and nonappearance. What the physicians' affidavits and claim-form address established.
Jun 9, 2014
EUO no-show (case #3)
Long Island court case analysis: Points of Health v Lancer Insurance on EUO scheduling letters, timely mailing procedures, and no-fault claim denial defenses.
Jul 30, 2010
How to Avoid the 120-Day Rule for Summary Judgment Motions in New York
Court ruling shows how defendants can avoid CPLR's 120-day summary judgment rule when motion involves purely legal questions rather than factual disputes.
Feb 19, 2018
Trial de novo summary judgment motion appealed
Appellate Division reverses trial court on no-fault insurance denial mailing practices and medical necessity evidence, establishing prima facie case standards.
Feb 11, 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 declaratory judgments 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.
