The if I was there EUO dance

Parisien v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 2022 NY Slip Op 50581(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2022)

“Plaintiff also argues that the affirmations submitted by defendant to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs were insufficient because they do not establish that defendant’s “attorneys were actually present at the times the EUOs were scheduled to be held.” [*2]We reject that argument. Defendant submitted the affirmations of two different partners in the law firm representing defendant in this action, each addressing one of the two scheduled EUOs. The first one stated that an EUO was scheduled to take place at 10:00 a.m. in the firm’s offices on December 2, 2014; that counsel was present in the office prepared to conduct the EUO on that date; that he would have conducted the EUO if plaintiff had appeared; and that plaintiff did not appear. The second affirmation stated that an EUO was scheduled to take place at 10:00 a.m. in the firm’s offices on January 9, 2015; that counsel was present in the office on that date and was in charge of determining whether the EUO would go forward; that if plaintiff had appeared, he would have conducted the EUO or assigned another attorney to conduct it; and that plaintiff did not appear. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, these affirmations were sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that plaintiff failed to appear for the EUO”

I would have denied the motion. This is the garbage affidavit that lead us to Alrof over a decade ago,

Related Articles

• Understanding CPLR 3212(a): Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York
• The CPLR 3212(g) paradigm
• Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance: Rights, Consequences, and Strategic Considerations
• No-Fault Verification Requirements: When Partial Compliance Isn’t Enough
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law