Priority of Payment and Policy Exhaustion in New York No-Fault: How 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 Has Been Applied, 2002 to 2025

Why this page exists

This is the hub page for priority of payment and policy exhaustion in the firm’s Legal Encyclopedia. The firm defended no-fault claims for carriers for years, and the archive holds case notes on the appellate decisions on 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 from 2009 forward. Those notes are a record of the rule while it was being made.

The February 25, 2026 version of this page was generated to sit on top of that archive, and it stated a holding that the two Appellate Division opinions do not contain. I have rewritten it from the opinions. The directory of the archive is kept at the bottom, newest first, each entry with its year, the decision it reports and a note where a later opinion read for this revision affirmed or modified it. The timeline in the middle shows how the rule was built, decision by decision.

The current rule

The regulation is one paragraph. 11 NYCRR 65-3.15, titled “Computation of basic economic loss,” reads in full:

“When claims aggregate to more than $50,000, payments for basic economic loss shall be made to the applicant and/or an assignee in the order in which each service was rendered or each expense was incurred, provided claims therefor were made to the insurer prior to the exhaustion of the $50,000. If the insurer pays the $50,000 before receiving claims for services rendered prior in time to those which were paid, the insurer will not be liable to pay such late claims. If the insurer receives claims of a number of providers of services, at the same time, the payments shall be made in the order of rendition of services.”

Section 65-3.15 states three things. First, the rule is triggered only when claims aggregate to more than $50,000, which is the basic economic loss limit for each eligible injured person in the mandatory personal injury protection endorsement, 11 NYCRR 65-1.1. Second, once triggered, payment goes in the order the service was rendered or the expense was incurred, and a claim for an earlier service that arrives after the insurer has already paid out the $50,000 is not owed. Third, where several providers’ claims arrive at the same time, the earlier date of service is paid first.

Keep two meanings of “priority of payment” apart. 11 NYCRR 65-3.12(b) governs which insurer pays when more than one is liable, and that dispute goes to mandatory arbitration between the insurers under Insurance Law § 5105 (M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 81 AD3d 541 (1st Dept, February 22, 2011)). This page is about 11 NYCRR 65-3.15, the order in which one insurer pays claims as its own limit is reached.

The regulation’s word “claims” carries the whole rule. In Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 NY3d 294, decided March 22, 2007, the Court of Appeals held that “claims” in 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 does not reach a claim that has not been verified in accordance with 11 NYCRR 65-3.5. The insurer is not obligated to pay any claim until it has been verified. Consequently, a bill is in line from the day the verification comes in, not the day the bill arrived.

Exhaustion is a defense the insurer keeps even when it never denied the claim. The failure to issue a denial within 30 days does not preclude the defense that the coverage limits have been exhausted (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 579 (2d Dept, November 22, 2004); Easy Care Acupuncture, PC v MVAIC, 2017 NY Slip Op 51346(U) (App Term, 1st Dept, October 11, 2017)). Once the insurer “has paid the full monetary limits set forth in the policy, its duties under the contract of insurance cease” (Countrywide Ins. Co. v Sawh, 272 AD2d 245 (1st Dept 2000), as quoted in DTR Country-Wide, 212 AD3d at 481).

In arbitration the same limit is enforced through CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii). An award directing payment beyond the monetary limit of the policy exceeds the arbitrator’s power and is a ground for vacatur (DTR Country-Wide, 212 AD3d 481, leave denied 40 NY3d 904 (2023); Matter of Ameriprise Ins. Co. v Kensington Radiology Group, P.C., 179 AD3d 563 (1st Dept, January 23, 2020)). The insurer may raise the defense for the first time in court, in opposition to confirmation, even if it was not before the arbitrators (DTR Country-Wide, 212 AD3d at 481, citing Ameriprise, 179 AD3d at 564). Going the other way, a master arbitrator’s award that denies a claim on exhaustion will be confirmed when it has evidentiary support and a rational basis; the grounds in CPLR 7511 for disturbing it “are few in number and narrowly applied” (Matter of Fill Rx NY, Inc. v LM Gen. Ins. Co., 241 AD3d 918 (2d Dept, August 27, 2025); Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 167 AD3d 869 (2d Dept, December 19, 2018)).

The regulation is not out of the picture in arbitration. In DTR Country-Wide the First Department wrote that the insurer’s ledger and supervisor’s affidavit “showed that the policy was properly exhausted prior to the underlying arbitration (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.15).” What the First Department will not do on an article 75 petition is choose between the Appellate Terms’ two readings of the regulation for the arbitrator. That is the holding of New Millennium and Lam Quan, and it is narrower than the old headline on this page.

How the rule developed in New York

The timeline below is the linkable asset on this page. Each row is a decision read for this revision, in date order, with what it decided and, where it matters, what it left open.

The regulation and the first exhaustion cases, 2002 to 2006

Revised Regulation 68 repealed and replaced the prior 11 NYCRR part 65. Its September 1, 2001 effective date was stayed, and the regulations have been in effect since April 4, 2002, when the Appellate Division denied a further stay (Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854 (2003), in the opinion’s notes). The Second Department was still citing the predecessor provision, former 11 NYCRR 65.15(n), for the same order-of-payment question in November 2004 (New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 579 (2d Dept, November 22, 2004)).

The early Second Department decisions fixed two points that have not moved. An insurer is not required to pay a claim where the policy limits have been exhausted, because once it has paid the full monetary limits “its duties under the contract of insurance cease” (Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 533 (2d Dept, June 21, 2004), quoting Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 216 AD2d 448 (1995)). The defense survives a missed 30-day denial (New York & Presbyt. Hosp., 12 AD3d at 580). The 2006 row in the timeline shows the proof that won the defense on summary judgment two years later.

Nyack Hospital and the meaning of “claims”, 2007

Nyack Hospital is the only Court of Appeals decision on 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 read for this revision. The hospital argued that once its $74,489.28 claim arrived on August 20, 2003, the insurer had to hold the rest of the $50,000 in reserve until the hospital answered the verification request. The court rejected that reading: treating unverified claims as “claims” would let a bare-bones claim block every other provider and “runs counter to the no-fault regulatory scheme, which is designed to promote prompt payment of legitimate claims.” The regulation came into play on October 20, 2003, when the records arrived; from that date the insurer had to pay the hospital ahead of any unpaid verified claim for later-rendered services.

Nyack settles what the later cases apply without saying so: an insurer that pays verified claims while a larger claim sits in verification is complying with the regulation, and an insurer that pays later-rendered claims after the larger claim is verified is not.

Exhaustion raised after judgment, 2010 to 2013

Three Second Department decisions dealt with an insurer that lost on the merits and then said the policy was exhausted. St. Barnabas Hosp. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 79 AD3d 732 (2d Dept, December 7, 2010), held that a summary judgment deciding only the 30-day question and verification did not collaterally estop the insurer from moving to reduce the judgment to what was left on the policy, while declining to pass on the CPLR 5019(a) vehicle. Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 82 AD3d 1085 (2d Dept, March 22, 2011), denied the same relief under CPLR 5015(a) because the insurer raised exhaustion only after the hospital took a $416,039.42 judgment. Mount Sinai Hosp. v Dust Tr., Inc., 104 AD3d 823 (2d Dept, March 20, 2013), reinstated a $59,609.44 judgment against a self-insured taxi corporation that had already paid $181,379.82 of its $200,000 in coverage, because the renewal motion had no reasonable justification and, in any event, the claims manager’s affidavit “failed to establish the order in which the medical services were rendered, and the order in which the claims were received.”

I wrote on March 21, 2013 that Dust Transit was “a very tough loss to take.” It still reads that way. The holding, however, is procedural and evidentiary: raise exhaustion before judgment, and prove the order of service and receipt, not just the totals.

The Appellate Terms split, 2015 to 2020

The split is about one fact pattern: the insurer timely denies a claim, the claim is litigated, and by the time the provider wins the insurer has paid other claims up to the limit.

The Appellate Term, First Department, answered for the insurer in Harmonic Physical Therapy, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 137(A), decided April 14, 2015. Following a timely denial for lack of medical necessity, the insurer exhausted the policy by paying arbitration awards to other providers, and the court held those payments complied with 11 NYCRR 65-3.15. The insurer “was not precluded by 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 from paying other providers’ legitimate claims subsequent to the denial of plaintiff’s claims”; requiring it to hold the money pending the disputed claim would, in Nyack’s words, run counter to the scheme. The same court applied Harmonic on May 31, 2016 in Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Northeast Anesthesia & Pain Mgt., 51 Misc 3d 149(A).

The Appellate Term, Second Department, answered for the provider in Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 55 Misc 3d 44, decided March 29, 2017. The insurer denied the claim on May 10, 2011 for lack of medical necessity and moved in May 2014 on exhaustion. The court reasoned that by denying the claim the insurer “implicitly declared that the claim at issue was fully verified,” that Nyack holds fully verified claims payable in the order received, and that the insurer’s argument that later payments exhausted the coverage “lacks merit,” adding “but see Harmonic.” The Second Department’s Appellate Term has applied Alleviation ever since: Ortho Passive Motion, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50771(U) (June 2, 2017) and 2018 NY Slip Op 51749(U) (November 29, 2018); Advanced Recovery Equip. & Supplies, LLC v Park Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51630(U) (November 8, 2018); First Am. Alliance, Inc. v Ameriprise Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51765(U) (November 30, 2018); S.O.V. Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 51365(U) (November 13, 2020). The formula in each is that the insurer failed to show the policy was exhausted “at the time the claims at issue were deemed complete.”

I said on April 1, 2017 that I thought Alleviation was incorrect from a policy standpoint, and on December 18, 2018 that poor claims handling should come with a price tag but that the line belongs where the claims were properly handled and the policy exhausts anyway. I have not changed my view. The Appellate Division, Second Department, took the appeal by permission, heard from the New York Insurance Association as amicus, and on February 24, 2021 affirmed “on different grounds than those relied upon by the Civil Court or the Appellate Term” (191 AD3d 934). The court restated the rules (“once claims have been verified they are subject to the priority of payment regulation”), held that the insurer’s proof was hearsay with no denial in the record, and said that “the parties’ remaining contentions, including those raised by the amici curiae, need not be reached.” Consequently, the split remains what it was on March 29, 2017.

Arbitration awards and the policy limit, 2016 to 2025

The arbitration line runs parallel, and it is where the two Appellate Divisions have spoken. An award directing payment in excess of the policy limit exceeds the arbitrator’s power (Matter of Brijmohan v State Farm Ins. Co., 92 NY2d 821 (1998), as applied in Northeast Anesthesia, 51 Misc 3d 149(A), and Ameriprise, 58 Misc 3d 144(A) (App Term, 1st Dept, December 22, 2017)). The First Department affirmed the Ameriprise remand on January 23, 2020 (179 AD3d 563): “claims” in 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 means verified claims, a provider that never appeared for its examination under oath had no verified claim, and the excess-of-power defense can be raised for the first time in opposition to confirmation. On January 17, 2023 it vacated an award under CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii) in DTR Country-Wide, 212 AD3d 481, and the Court of Appeals denied leave, 40 NY3d 904.

New Millennium, 220 AD3d 578 (1st Dept, October 24, 2023), is the decision the old headline on this page misread. The provider did not dispute that the policy was exhausted before the arbitration; it argued that its claim, submitted and denied before exhaustion, “should retain priority of payment,” which is the Alleviation argument. The First Department held that the arbitrator’s following Harmonic rather than Alleviation “does not warrant reversal,” and that an arbitrator who awards a claim after exhaustion exceeds his or her power. Lam Quan, 223 AD3d 503 (1st Dept, January 16, 2024), quotes that passage and adds nothing to it. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum appeared of counsel for the appellant provider in New Millennium; the First Department affirmed the order that had denied the petition to vacate.

On the Second Department side, Acuhealth, 167 AD3d 869 (December 19, 2018), and Fill Rx, 241 AD3d 918 (August 27, 2025), are article 75 affirmances of master arbitration awards that denied claims on exhaustion. Both apply 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(a)(2) and the rule that the court does not decide whether the master arbitrator erred in applying the law. Neither decides how 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 applies to a denied claim; neither mentions the regulation.

Where the departments differ and what is undecided

The old version of this page said the question was settled. It is not. What the First Department has held, on article 75 review, is that an arbitrator may follow Harmonic; it has not held in a plenary action that Harmonic is right, and its own Appellate Term still lists compliance with 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 as a triable issue when the record shows payments to other providers (Advantage Radiology, P.C. v MVAIC, 2023 NY Slip Op 50139(U) (App Term, 1st Dept, February 27, 2023)). The Second Department has never said whether it agrees with Alleviation; it affirmed on proof and said the rest need not be reached. Nyack remains the Court of Appeals decision the lower courts apply, and the court denied leave in DTR Country-Wide.

One more point separates the departments, and it is procedural. In the First Department, a defendant that does not plead noncompliance with 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 as an affirmative defense cannot demand that the insurer prove compliance in its prima facie case (Metro Pain, 211 AD3d at 403). In the Second Department’s Appellate Term, the insurer moving for summary judgment on exhaustion “had to prove that it had paid the limits of the policy in accordance with 11 NYCRR 65-3.15” (JPC Med., 2022 NY Slip Op 50562(U)). Where you are sued decides who carries the regulation.

What this means in practice

For the provider or claimant with a denied bill on a policy that later ran out, the first question is which Appellate Term will hear the case. In Kings, Queens, Richmond, Nassau and Suffolk, Alleviation controls, and the insurer must show exhaustion as of the date the claim was complete. In New York and Bronx counties, Harmonic controls, and a timely denial followed by legitimate payments to others will end the claim. In arbitration the arbitrator may follow either line, and the award will not be vacated for the choice. Consequently, a provider with an early date of service and a disputed denial should challenge the denial quickly, in the forum that reads the regulation its way.

For the insurer, the ledger is the case. It must list, in chronological order, the date each claim was received, the date each was paid and the date of service, and it must come in through an affidavit from a person with knowledge of the claim file and the office’s procedures, so that it is a business record under CPLR 4518(a) (Metro Pain, 211 AD3d at 403; JPC Med., 2022 NY Slip Op 50562(U)). An affidavit that recites the limit and a total paid lost in Dust Transit in 2013 and in Alleviation in 2021. Raise exhaustion in the answer and on the summary judgment motion, not after judgment. In arbitration, put the ledger before the lower arbitrator, and if the award exceeds the limit, oppose confirmation on excess of power; the First Department allows that defense for the first time in court (DTR Country-Wide, 212 AD3d at 481).

For the claimant told that the money is gone, ask for the ledger. The insurer’s own payment log is the proof it will need, and it shows whether your provider’s verified claim was passed over for a later-rendered service. The regulation’s second sentence cuts the other way: a bill for an early service that reaches the insurer after the $50,000 is paid is not owed.

Bring these to the first call:

• The denial of claim form (NF-10) for the bill, with its date and stated ground.
• Every verification request and your response, with dates, because the claim is in line only from the day it was verified.
• The insurer’s letter stating that the policy is exhausted, and any payment ledger it has produced.
• The dates of service on the disputed bill and, if you have them, the dates of service on the claims the insurer paid instead.
• Any arbitration award or master arbitration award already issued on the claim.

The firm’s archive on priority of payment and policy exhaustion

Every case note in the archive on this topic, newest first. Each link is a note written when the decision came down, in the voice of that day; the note’s holding statements were not re-verified unless the decision is named above. Entries marked “not re-read for this revision” report a decision that was not fetched for this rewrite.

Priority of payment among claims (11 NYCRR 65-3.15) and policy exhaustion

• 2023: Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Metro Pain Specialists P.C., 211 AD3d 403 (1st Dept, December 1, 2022). The declaration page, supervisor’s affidavit and ledger make the prima facie case; 65-3.15 compliance need not be proved where it was not pleaded.
• 2023: Understanding 11 NYCRR 65-3.15, an explainer built on Matter of DTR Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Refill Rx Pharm., Inc., 212 AD3d 481 (1st Dept, January 17, 2023).
• 2023: Policy exhaustion and 65-3.15: DTR Country-Wide v Refill Rx, 212 AD3d 481 (1st Dept, January 17, 2023). Award over the limit vacated; ledger showed the policy properly exhausted before the arbitration.
• 2023: The 65-3.15 defense must be pleaded: Metro Pain, 211 AD3d 403 (1st Dept, December 1, 2022).
• 2023: Advantage Radiology, P.C. v MVAIC, 2023 NY Slip Op 50139(U) (App Term, 1st Dept, February 27, 2023). Triable issues on exhaustion and compliance with the priority regulation; the court cited both 65-3.15 and Harmonic.
• 2022: JPC Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 50562(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, June 3, 2022). Summary judgment on exhaustion requires proof of payment in accordance with 65-3.15 and a CPLR 4518(a) foundation for the log.
• 2022: Competing assignees under Florida’s English rule, a Florida Third District decision on priority among assignees; not New York law (not re-read for this revision).
• 2021: Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 191 AD3d 934 (2d Dept, February 24, 2021). Affirmed on different grounds; the insurer’s affidavit was hearsay; the Harmonic question was not reached.
• 2021: S.O.V. Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 51365(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, November 13, 2020). Payments made after a partial denial do not warrant summary judgment on exhaustion.
• 2020: Matter of Ameriprise Ins. Co. v Kensington Radiology Group, P.C., 179 AD3d 563 (1st Dept, January 23, 2020). “Claims” means verified claims; EUO no-show meant no verified claim; framed issue hearing affirmed.
• 2018: NY no-fault arbitration and award challenges: Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 167 AD3d 869 (2d Dept, December 19, 2018). Master arbitrator’s exhaustion award confirmed; CPLR 7511 grounds are few and narrow.
• 2018: First Am. Alliance, Inc. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. and Ortho Passive Motion, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51765(U) (November 30, 2018) and 2018 NY Slip Op 51749(U) (November 29, 2018) (App Term, 2d Dept). Both apply Alleviation.
• 2018: Advanced Recovery Equip. & Supplies, LLC v Park Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51630(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, November 8, 2018). Exhaustion not shown as of the date the claim was complete.
• 2018: Leave to appeal granted in Ameriprise v Kensington, 2018 NY Slip Op 80613(U) (1st Dept 2018) (the motion order was not re-read for this revision; the appeal was decided January 23, 2020, 179 AD3d 563).
• 2018: Ameriprise Ins. Co. v Kensington Radiology Group, P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 51911(U) (App Term, 1st Dept, December 22, 2017). Award over $50,000 exceeds the arbitrator’s power; remanded for a framed issue hearing (affirmed, 179 AD3d 563 (1st Dept, January 23, 2020)).
• 2017: Leave to appeal granted in Alleviation v Allstate, 2017 NY Slip Op 96489(U) (2d Dept 2017) (the motion order was not re-read for this revision; the appeal was decided February 24, 2021, 191 AD3d 934).
• 2017: Easy Care Acupuncture, PC v MVAIC, 2017 NY Slip Op 51346(U) (App Term, 1st Dept, October 11, 2017). Triable issues on partial exhaustion and whether the payments were proper under the regulations.
• 2017: Ortho Passive Motion, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50771(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, June 2, 2017). Post-judgment exhaustion motion denied; no showing of exhaustion when the claims were deemed complete.
• 2017: Priority of payment, an extended discussion: Alleviation at the Appellate Term, 55 Misc 3d 44 (App Term, 2d Dept, March 29, 2017) (affirmed on other grounds, 191 AD3d 934 (2d Dept, February 24, 2021)). My April 1, 2017 view that Alleviation was wrong on policy, with the Harmonic safe harbor explained.
• 2016: Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Northeast Anesthesia & Pain Mgt., 2016 NY Slip Op 50828(U) (App Term, 1st Dept, May 31, 2016). Award over the limit exceeds power; Harmonic followed; framed issue hearing.
• 2015: Harmonic Physical Therapy, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 50525(U) (App Term, 1st Dept, April 14, 2015). The First Department line begins.
• 2013: Mount Sinai Hosp. v Dust Tr., Inc., 104 AD3d 823 (2d Dept, March 20, 2013). The ledger must show order of service and receipt; renewal after judgment denied.
• 2010: St. Barnabas Hosp. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 79 AD3d 732 (2d Dept, December 7, 2010). No collateral estoppel against a post-judgment motion to reduce to the remaining limit.

Priority of payment among insurers (11 NYCRR 65-3.12) and related defenses

• 2011: M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 81 AD3d 541 (1st Dept, February 22, 2011). Which insurer pays is not a coverage question and goes to mandatory arbitration under Insurance Law § 5105.
• 2011: Workers’ compensation primacy as a no-fault defense (not re-read for this revision).
• 2009: Priority of coverage disputes go to intercompany arbitration, on SZ Medical, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 7 Misc 3d 86 (App Term, 2d Dept 2005) (not re-read for this revision) and the Appellate Term decision later affirmed in M.N. Dental.
• 2009: Priority of coverage and the 30-day rule, on Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 2009 NY Slip Op 02589 (2d Dept 2009) (not re-read for this revision).

Sources

Regulations:

• 11 NYCRR 65-3.15 (computation of basic economic loss; priority of payment): law.cornell.edu
• 11 NYCRR 65-1.1 (mandatory personal injury protection endorsement; the $50,000 basic economic loss limit): law.cornell.edu
• 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (claim procedure; verification): law.cornell.edu
• 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (payment or denial of claim): law.cornell.edu
• 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (master arbitration; subdivision (a)(2), award in excess of policy limitations): law.cornell.edu

Court of Appeals:

• Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 NY3d 294 (March 22, 2007): nycourts.gov
• Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854 (2003) (effective date of revised Regulation 68, in the opinion’s notes): static.case.law (Caselaw Access Project scan of the official reporter)

Appellate Division, First Department:

• Matter of Lam Quan, MD, PC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 223 AD3d 503 (January 16, 2024): nycourts.gov
• Matter of New Millennium Pain & Spine Medicine, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 220 AD3d 578 (October 24, 2023): nycourts.gov
• Matter of DTR Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Refill Rx Pharm., Inc., 212 AD3d 481 (January 17, 2023): nycourts.gov
• Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Metro Pain Specialists P.C., 211 AD3d 403 (December 1, 2022): nycourts.gov
• Matter of Ameriprise Ins. Co. v Kensington Radiology Group, P.C., 179 AD3d 563 (January 23, 2020): nycourts.gov
• M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 81 AD3d 541 (February 22, 2011): nycourts.gov

Appellate Division, Second Department:

• Matter of Fill Rx NY, Inc. v LM Gen. Ins. Co., 241 AD3d 918 (August 27, 2025): nycourts.gov
• Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 191 AD3d 934 (February 24, 2021): nycourts.gov
• Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 167 AD3d 869 (December 19, 2018): nycourts.gov
• Mount Sinai Hosp. v Dust Tr., Inc., 104 AD3d 823 (March 20, 2013): nycourts.gov
• Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 82 AD3d 1085 (March 22, 2011): nycourts.gov
• St. Barnabas Hosp. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 79 AD3d 732 (December 7, 2010): nycourts.gov
• New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 28 AD3d 528 (April 11, 2006): nycourts.gov
• New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 579 (November 22, 2004): nycourts.gov
• Hospital for Joint Diseases v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 533 (June 21, 2004): nycourts.gov

Appellate Term, First Department:

• Advantage Radiology, P.C. v MVAIC, 2023 NY Slip Op 50139(U) (February 27, 2023): nycourts.gov
• Ameriprise Ins. Co. v Kensington Radiology Group, P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 51911(U) (December 22, 2017): nycourts.gov
• Easy Care Acupuncture, PC v MVAIC, 2017 NY Slip Op 51346(U) (October 11, 2017): nycourts.gov
• Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Northeast Anesthesia & Pain Mgt., 2016 NY Slip Op 50828(U) (May 31, 2016): nycourts.gov
• Harmonic Physical Therapy, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 50525(U) (April 14, 2015): nycourts.gov

Appellate Term, Second Department:

• JPC Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 50562(U) (June 3, 2022): nycourts.gov
• S.O.V. Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 51365(U) (November 13, 2020): nycourts.gov
• First Am. Alliance, Inc. v Ameriprise Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51765(U) (November 30, 2018): nycourts.gov
• Ortho Passive Motion, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51749(U) (November 29, 2018): nycourts.gov
• Advanced Recovery Equip. & Supplies, LLC v Park Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51630(U) (November 8, 2018): nycourts.gov
• Ortho Passive Motion, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 50771(U) (June 2, 2017): nycourts.gov
• Alleviation Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 55 Misc 3d 44 (March 29, 2017): nycourts.gov

---

If a no-fault insurer has told you or your practice that the policy is exhausted, the ledger decides it. Send us the denial, the exhaustion letter and the dates of service through the contact page or call (516) 750-0595. Insurers defending exhaustion in Nassau, Suffolk, Queens or Kings County can reach the firm’s no-fault defense practice the same way.

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.