EUO No-Show Proof in New York No-Fault: The Attorney Affirmation, the Time-Lapse Argument and GC Chiropractic v State Farm (2025)

Short version. In the Appellate Term for the Second, Eleventh and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, an insurer proves an EUO no-show with the affirmation of the attorney who was present to conduct the examination and who states that the provider did not appear. The affirmation is read on its face and is rejected only if it is “unworthy of belief or incredible as a matter of law” (Brefni Chiropractic Diagnostics, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 51518(U), September 5, 2025, quoting Joseph-Felix v Hersh, 208 AD3d 571, 573 (2d Dept 2022)). In SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO, 2022 NY Slip Op 50931(U) (September 23, 2022), and again in GC Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 51982(U) (December 5, 2025), the Civil Court had rejected the affirmation because of the time between the missed examinations and its execution; the Appellate Term reversed both times. The provider’s answers are an affidavit that it appeared, or a defect in the demand, the mailing or the denial.

Why this page exists

The Legal Encyclopedia’s Examinations Under Oath topic is anchored by the 2019 guide to EUO requirements, which reads Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 51684(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, October 18, 2019), with Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596 (2d Dept 2014). This page is the topic’s explainer on one element of that defense: the proof that the provider did not appear, and the objection that the attorney signed the affirmation too long after the missed dates. The firm’s archive recorded that question from Crotona Heights in 2010 through the First Department’s IME recollection cases of 2016 and 2019, and this page ties those notes to the 2022 and 2025 decisions that answered it.

The directory at the end lists every archive post on EUO and IME no-show proof, newest first, with the year and the decision each one reports. Entries whose opinions were re-read for this revision carry the decision’s date and cite. Entries marked “(not re-read for this revision)” are named as the archive names them, and no holding in the body rests on them. No fetched opinion reverses or supersedes any post in the directory; therefore, none is marked.

The current rule

The obligation comes from the mandatory personal injury protection endorsement, 11 NYCRR 65-1.1. Under the heading Conditions, the endorsement says: “No action shall lie against the Company unless, as a condition precedent thereto, there shall have been full compliance with the terms of this coverage.” Under Proof of Claim, it says that upon request by the company the eligible injured person or that person’s assignee or representative shall “(b) as may reasonably be required submit to examinations under oath by any person named by the Company and subscribe the same.”

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reads those words as a condition precedent to coverage. In Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 (2d Dept, December 19, 2006), an IME case, the court held that “[t]he appearance of the insured for IMEs at any time is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy” and that an insurer “may deny a claim retroactively to the date of loss.” In Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 (2d Dept, January 8, 2014), the court quoted Argento v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 184 AD2d 487 (1992): the failure to comply with a policy provision requiring an examination under oath “is a material breach of the policy, precluding recovery of the policy proceeds.” The First Department states the same result in coverage terms. The failure to attend “is a violation of a condition precedent to coverage that vitiates the policy” (Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 AD3d 411 (1st Dept, January 6, 2015)).

Clennon also fixed the insurer’s prima facie showing. The insurer establishes the defense “as a matter of law” by proving that it “twice duly demanded an examination under oath,” that the assignor “twice failed to appear,” and that it “issued a timely denial of the claims.” The Appellate Term repeats that formula in its EUO no-show decisions and adds that the insurer need not set out objective reasons for the demand to make its prima facie case (Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 50864(U), June 8, 2018; Gentlecare, 2019 NY Slip Op 51684(U), October 18, 2019). The regulation itself still requires that an EUO requirement “be based upon the application of objective standards so that there is specific objective justification supporting the use of such examination” (11 NYCRR 65-3.5(e)). The Appellate Term’s point is that the insurer does not have to plead those standards to win summary judgment.

The clocks are in the claims regulation. Additional verification, an EUO included, must be requested “within 15 business days of receipt of the prescribed verification forms” (11 NYCRR 65-3.5(b)). If the verification has not been supplied 30 calendar days after the original request, the insurer “shall, within 10 calendar days, follow up” (11 NYCRR 65-3.6(b)). In the case of an examination under oath, “the verification is deemed to have been received by the insurer on the day the examination was performed,” and the claim is overdue if not paid within 30 calendar days after proof of claim (11 NYCRR 65-3.8(a)(1)); within that period the insurer “shall either pay or deny the claim in whole or in part” (11 NYCRR 65-3.8(c)). The Appellate Term applied those sections in Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.C. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 2013 NY Slip Op 51106(U) (July 1, 2013): scheduling letters mailed “more than 70 days after the receipt of the bills” were untimely and “did not toll defendant’s time to pay or deny those bills,” although an EUO “need not be scheduled to be held within 30 days of the receipt of the claim form.”

The second element, the failure to appear, is proved by a witness with personal knowledge. Fogel denied the insurer’s motion because it “submitted no evidence from anyone with personal knowledge of the mailings or of the nonappearances” (35 AD3d at 721). For an EUO that witness is the attorney. The Appellate Term accepts the affirmation of the attorney “who was present in his office to conduct plaintiff’s EUO on the scheduled dates” (Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51310(U), August 20, 2014; T & J Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 50406(U), March 17, 2015). The First Department’s Appellate Division said the same in Hertz: the attorney “who was assigned to the file and who would have conducted the EUO if the defendants had appeared certainly was in a position to state” that they did not appear. The recipe the Appellate Term now describes is the one in SVP Med Supply, MAZ Chiropractic and Brefni. The attorney states that he or she was present at the location of the scheduled EUOs on the scheduled dates, that he or she would have conducted the EUOs, or assigned another attorney to do so, had the provider appeared, and that the provider did not appear.

The affirmation is then read on its face. A recollection challenge fails where, “on its face,” the affirmation “was not unworthy of belief” (SVP Med Supply, 2022 NY Slip Op 50931(U), *2), or was not “unworthy of belief or incredible as a matter of law” (Brefni, quoting Joseph-Felix v Hersh, 208 AD3d 571, 573). The Appellate Division source of that phrase is a rear-end collision case, not a no-fault case. In Joseph-Felix (2d Dept, August 10, 2022) the court held that an affidavit is incredible as a matter of law only when it is “impossible of belief because it [was] manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory,” and that a contradiction with other evidence in the record is “a classic dispute of fact,” not a reason to reject the affidavit. The Appellate Term carried that summary judgment standard into the no-show cases.

Consequently, on the decisions fetched for this page, the time between the missed examinations and the signing of the affirmation has not been accepted as a ground for rejecting an attorney’s affirmation in the Second, Eleventh and Thirteenth Judicial Districts. SVP Med Supply reversed a Civil Court that had relied on “the amount of time between the scheduled EUOs and the date on which the affirmation was executed.” GC Chiropractic reversed a Civil Court that had called an affirmation “on its face unworthy of belief” because it was executed approximately three years after the no-shows. Neither opinion says the affirmation explained the lapse, and neither required it to.

The rule at a glance, with the section or decision that supplies each piece:

What GC Chiropractic decided, and what it did not

GC Chiropractic, P.C., as assignee of Pablo Lino, sued State Farm for assigned first-party no-fault benefits in the Civil Court, Kings County. State Farm moved for summary judgment on the ground that the provider had failed to appear for duly scheduled EUOs. By order dated October 18, 2022, the Civil Court found, in effect under CPLR 3212(g), that State Farm had established timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and the denials, but denied summary judgment. The affirmation of State Farm’s attorney attesting to the failure to appear was, in the Civil Court’s view, insufficient “due to the ‘significant lapse in time’ between the alleged no-shows and execution of the affirmation.”

State Farm moved for leave to renew, arguing that under SVP Med Supply the affirmation was sufficient. By order dated May 15, 2024, the Civil Court granted leave to renew and adhered to its prior determination, finding the affirmation “on its face unworthy of belief” because it was executed approximately three years after the purported no-shows. State Farm appealed from that part of the order.

On December 5, 2025, the Appellate Term, Second Department (Toussaint, P.J., Mundy and Quiñones, JJ.), reversed, with $30 costs, and granted the motion upon renewal. The holding is one sentence. Contrary to the finding of the Civil Court, the attorney’s affirmation “on its face, … was not unworthy of belief” (quoting SVP Med Supply and citing Brefni and MAZ Chiropractic), “and was sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff failed to appear for the scheduled EUOs” (citing SVP Med Supply, Hertz, Brefni, MAZ Chiropractic, T & J Chiropractic and Natural Therapy Acupuncture). The provider’s attempt to contest the Civil Court’s finding that State Farm was otherwise entitled to judgment “lacks merit.”

Here is what the opinion does not contain. It does not describe what the affirmation said beyond “attesting to plaintiff’s failure to appear.” It does not state a rule about credibility findings on summary judgment, and it does not say that an affirmation stands unless it is contradicted or inherently incredible; those formulations came from the earlier version of this page, not from the court. It does not say that attorneys keep contemporaneous records or that the affirmation rested on them. It does not cite Healthy Way, Satya Drug or Metro 8, and it does not say whether an IME physician’s affidavit signed years after the examination would be treated the same way. It sets no outer limit on the lapse. It applied SVP Med Supply to a three-year gap and went no further.

How the rule developed in New York

The rule on the no-show witness was built in the Appellate Term for the Second, Eleventh and Thirteenth Judicial Districts over fifteen years, on two Appellate Division anchors, with a separate line in the First Department’s Appellate Term on the IME affidavit. Each row below is a decision or a text that was read for this page; the dates are decision dates.

The sequence has four stages. First, the Appellate Division fixed the nature of the defense: a condition precedent (Fogel, 2006) and a material breach (Clennon, 2014), with a three-part prima facie case. Second, the Appellate Term settled who the witness is. From Crotona Heights (2010) through Viviane Etienne (2012), Natural Therapy (2014) and T & J (2015), the attorney who was in the office to conduct the examination is the person with personal knowledge, and the First Department’s Appellate Division agreed in Hertz (2015).

Third, the argument that would later be aimed at attorneys was born in the First Department’s IME cases. Metro 8 (February 18, 2016), Healthy Way (September 28, 2016) and Satya Drug (September 20, 2019) rejected physicians’ affidavits and affirmations signed 18 months, eight years and 16 months after the examinations because the affiant did not state the basis of the recollection. Metro 8 put the burden on “the proponent of an affidavit to demonstrate the basis of the affiant’s knowledge.” Providers then raised the same objection to attorneys’ EUO affirmations in Kings County.

Fourth, the Second Department’s Appellate Term answered. SVP Med Supply (September 23, 2022) reversed a Civil Court that had applied Metro 8 to an attorney’s affirmation, held that presence at the location plus the assignment to conduct the examination is personal knowledge, and imported the Joseph-Felix standard: the affirmation is judged on its face. MAZ Chiropractic (March 28, 2025), Brefni (September 5, 2025) and GC Chiropractic (December 5, 2025) applied that answer, the last of them to a gap of about three years. CPLR 2106, amended effective January 1, 2024, did not change any of this for attorneys; it widened the class of people who may affirm rather than swear.

Where the two Appellate Terms differ

The two lines have not been reconciled by a decision in the files read for this page. SVP Med Supply cited Metro 8 with a “cf.” signal, which marks a difference without overruling anything, and an Appellate Term cannot overrule the other department’s Appellate Term in any event. GC Chiropractic did not cite the First Department cases at all. The comparison below states what each line holds and no more.

The consequence for anyone reading the archive is a matter of labels. A 2016 or 2019 post that says a stale affidavit failed is reporting the First Department’s IME rule, and that rule is still the law there. A 2022 or 2025 post that says a stale affirmation succeeded is reporting the Second Department’s EUO rule. Neither line has been extended to the other’s facts by an opinion in the files read for this page, and this page does not predict that either will be.

What this means in practice

For the provider or claimant opposing the motion in the Second, Eleventh or Thirteenth Judicial District, the time-lapse objection, standing alone, has lost twice on appeal. Spend the opposition elsewhere. The showing that raises a triable issue is your own affidavit that you appeared (SVP Med Supply). The defects that defeat the prima facie case are in the clocks and the papers: a scheduling letter mailed later than 15 business days after the insurer received the verification forms (11 NYCRR 65-3.5(b); Optimal Well-Being), no follow-up within 10 calendar days after 30 days of silence (11 NYCRR 65-3.6(b)), a denial issued later than 30 calendar days after the second missed date (11 NYCRR 65-3.8(c); the third Clennon element), a mailing affidavit that describes neither personal knowledge of the mailing nor the office practice, or an affirmation that does not say the affiant was present at the location and would have conducted the examination. In the First Department, an IME affidavit that gives no basis for a recollection formed months or years later is still vulnerable under Healthy Way and Satya Drug. Respond to the EUO request in writing when it arrives; a provider that never responded cannot object to the request later (Viviane Etienne; Natural Therapy).

For the insurer, the affirmation that survives is the one written the way SVP Med Supply, MAZ Chiropractic and Brefni describe it: the affiant was present at the stated location on each scheduled date, was the attorney assigned to conduct the examination or to assign it, and the provider did not appear on either date. Add the certified mail numbers that tie the notices to the return receipts, as Hertz accepted. Ask the Civil Court for CPLR 3212(g) findings on mailing and the denial, because those findings, unappealed, are what carried the day in Crotona Heights, SVP Med Supply and GC Chiropractic. If the motion is denied on a ground the Appellate Term has already rejected, move to renew and say so; that is the route GC Chiropractic took.

In my judgment the opinions reward one habit above all others: the affirmation should read like testimony, not like a form. Where the affiant was, on what date, at what address, why the affiant was there, and what did not happen. An affirmation that says only “plaintiff failed to appear” invites the recollection argument even in the Second Department, because the courts that accepted these affirmations described their contents in detail. The date the affirmation is signed is not the problem the decisions identify. The absence of the details is.

Bring these to the first call, whichever side you are on:

• Every EUO scheduling letter, with the date the insurer received the bill or verification form and the date each letter was mailed.
• The denial of claim forms and the dates they were mailed.
• Any written response to the EUO request, including a request to reschedule.
• The affirmation or affidavit the insurer served on the no-show, and any transcript, sign-in sheet or calendar entry for the scheduled dates.
• The Civil Court’s order, if a motion has already been decided, showing whether CPLR 3212(g) findings were made.

The archive on EUO and IME no-show proof, newest first

Each entry gives the year of the post and the decision it reports. Where the opinion was re-read for this revision, the decision date and cite are stated; otherwise the entry carries “(not re-read for this revision)” and the body above attributes no holding to it.

• 2019: Understanding EUO requirements in New York no-fault cases. The topic’s hub post. Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 51684(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, October 18, 2019): no objective reasons required; the Clennon elements.
• 2019: Understanding IME no-shows in New York no-fault cases. The IME hub post: four October 2019 Appellate Term decisions read with Nationwide General Insurance Co. v Gaines (not re-read for this revision), and Satya Drug Corp. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 51505(U) (App Term, 1st Dept, September 20, 2019), where the IME proof failed.
• 2018: EUO no-show case, objective reasons not necessary, what’s next. Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 50864(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, June 8, 2018): the insurer need not set forth objective reasons to make its prima facie case.
• 2017: IME no-show, it was not mailed. K.O. Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co. (not re-read for this revision): insufficient proof of mailing of the IME notices.
• 2017: EUO is untimely and not a double no-show. Sovereign Acupuncture, P.C. v American Commerce Ins. Co. (not re-read for this revision): an untimely EUO request and a rescheduled date.
• 2017: 45-day rule denial not sustained. Utopia Equip. Inc. v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co. (not re-read for this revision): the mailing affidavit behind a 45-day-rule denial; a mailing-proof decision, not a no-show decision.
• 2017: The IME recollection issue: proving an IME no-show years after the missed exam. Utica Acupuncture P.C. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50331(U) (not re-read for this revision; cited in Satya Drug): an unexplained recollection two years later defeated the IME motion.
• 2016: IME no-show affidavit executed 8 years prior to the no-show. Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51381(U) (App Term, 1st Dept, September 28, 2016): the doctors’ affidavits, signed some eight years later, lacked probative value for failing to state the basis of the recollection.
• 2016: IME/EUO no-show substantiated (First Department). Urban Well Acupuncture, P.C. v Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. and Metro 8 Med. Equip., Inc. v Esurance Ins. Co. (not re-read for this revision): different witnesses accepted for IME and EUO proof.
• 2016: Sutphin: mailing proved, absence triable. Sutphin Complete Med. Care v Hereford Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50763(U) (not re-read for this revision): mailing established, nonappearance left for trial.
• 2016: Affidavit issues once again invade Hertz motion practice. Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Hertz Co. (not re-read for this revision): neither side won summary judgment on the no-show proof.
• 2016: Village Medical: the recollection foundation. Village Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2016 NY Slip Op 50339(U) (not re-read for this revision; cited in Healthy Way): an unexplained recollection and sole reliance on the vendor rejected.
• 2016: The proof of no-show: Metro 8 v ELRAC. Metro 8 Med. Equip., Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 50174(U) (App Term, 1st Dept, February 18, 2016): an IME affidavit signed some 18 months later, with no basis of recollection stated, lacked probative value; the vendor’s affidavit could not supply personal knowledge.
• 2015: Personal knowledge and other appropriate means. Acupuncture Pain Mgt., P.C. v Kemper Cas. Ins. Co. (not re-read for this revision): personal knowledge and office practice in IME no-show proof.
• 2014: EUO no-show defense sustained: Natural Therapy Acupuncture v State Farm. Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51310(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, August 20, 2014): mailing per office practice and the affirmation of the attorney present to conduct the EUO sustained the defense.
• 2014: No-show substantiated: MDJ Medical. MDJ Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 50895(U) (not re-read for this revision): physicians’ affidavits and the claim-form address established IME and EUO nonappearance.
• 2013: EUO no-show precluded due to untimely scheduling letters. Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.C. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 2013 NY Slip Op 51106(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, July 1, 2013): letters mailed more than 70 days after receipt of the bills did not toll the time to pay or deny.
• 2012: An attorney’s statement that the provider did not show up supports the EUO defense. Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50579(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, April 2, 2012): the affirmation of one of the attorneys responsible for conducting the EUOs established the no-show; a provider that never responded to the request cannot object to it later.
• 2012: Improper affirmation cost the plaintiff its case: Radiology Today. Radiology Today, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (not re-read for this revision): a CPLR 2106 affirmation by a practice owner under the pre-2024 rule.
• 2010: The trap called 2106: High Quality Medical. High Quality Med., P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co. (not re-read for this revision): the pre-2024 CPLR 2106 limits and an IME rebuttal.
• 2010: EUO no-show (case #2). Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Progressive Ins. Co. (not re-read for this revision): timely scheduling letters and the affidavits needed to toll the claim period.
• 2010: Partner’s affirmation demonstrated the no-show component of an EUO no-show defense. Crotona Hgts. Med., P.C. v Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50716(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, April 16, 2010): a partner’s affirmation alleging facts sufficient to establish the failure to appear; appearance at an EUO is a condition precedent.
• 2010: The CPLR 2106 trap for medical-practice owners: Doshi. Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Servs., P.C. v Mercury Ins. Group (not re-read for this revision): the pre-2024 ownership restriction on affirmations.
• 2009: 2106 again: the St. Vincent affirmation decision. St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co. (not re-read for this revision): record foundation, mailing and medical proof under the old CPLR 2106.

Sources

• GC Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 51982(U), 87 Misc 3d 135(A) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th and 13th Jud Dists, December 5, 2025): nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_51982.htm
• Brefni Chiropractic Diagnostics, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 51518(U), 87 Misc 3d 128(A) (September 5, 2025): 2025_51518.htm
• MAZ Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 50492(U), 85 Misc 3d 135(A) (March 28, 2025): 2025_50492.htm
• SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO, 2022 NY Slip Op 50931(U), 76 Misc 3d 134(A) (September 23, 2022): 2022_50931.htm
• Joseph-Felix v Hersh, 208 AD3d 571 (2d Dept, August 10, 2022): 2022_04905.htm
• Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 51684(U), 65 Misc 3d 138(A) (October 18, 2019): 2019_51684.htm
• Satya Drug Corp. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 51505(U), 65 Misc 3d 127(A) (App Term, 1st Dept, September 20, 2019): 2019_51505.htm
• Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 50864(U), 59 Misc 3d 152(A) (June 8, 2018): 2018_50864.htm
• Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 51381(U), 53 Misc 3d 131(A) (App Term, 1st Dept, September 28, 2016): 2016_51381.htm
• Metro 8 Med. Equip., Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 50174(U), 50 Misc 3d 140(A) (App Term, 1st Dept, February 18, 2016): 2016_50174.htm
• T & J Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 50406(U), 47 Misc 3d 130(A) (March 17, 2015): 2015_50406.htm
• Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 AD3d 411 (1st Dept, January 6, 2015): 2015_00212.htm
• Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51310(U), 44 Misc 3d 141(A) (August 20, 2014): 2014_51310.htm
• Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596 (2d Dept, January 8, 2014): 2014_00092.htm
• Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.C. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 2013 NY Slip Op 51106(U), 40 Misc 3d 129(A) (July 1, 2013): 2013_51106.htm
• Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50579(U), 35 Misc 3d 127(A) (April 2, 2012): 2012_50579.htm
• Crotona Hgts. Med., P.C. v Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50716(U), 27 Misc 3d 134(A) (April 16, 2010): 2010_50716.htm
• Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 (2d Dept, December 19, 2006): 2006_09604.htm
• 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 (mandatory endorsement): law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-york/11-NYCRR-65-1.1; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (claim procedure, subdivisions (b) and (e)): 11-NYCRR-65-3.5; 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 (follow-up): 11-NYCRR-65-3.6; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (payment or denial): 11-NYCRR-65-3.8
• CPLR 2106, current text and the text in effect until December 31, 2023: nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/R2106

If a no-fault claim you are pursuing or defending turns on proof that a provider or an injured person missed an examination under oath, and the papers include an affirmation signed long after the missed dates, bring the scheduling letters, the denials and the affirmation to the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum or call (516) 750-0595. The decisions above decide the question on the papers; the papers are what we will read first.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has recovered more than $100 million for clients across personal injury, employment, and no-fault matters since 2002. We work on contingency: no fee unless we win.