Alrof hits Ameriprise
Ameriprise loses summary judgment motion due to lack of personal knowledge proof for EUO no-shows, following the established Alrof precedent in New York no-fault law.
Alrof hits Ameriprise — Read Article →In-depth legal analysis from Attorney Jason Tenenbaum — covering court rulings, legal standards, and practical guidance on personal knowledge of no-show under New York law.
Expert Analysis
When an insurer denies a no-fault claim based on a claimant's failure to appear for an EUO or IME, the denial must be supported by an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge of the no-show — not mere reliance on claims file entries. Courts scrutinize whether the affiant personally witnessed the non-appearance or has sufficient firsthand knowledge to testify about the scheduling and non-attendance. These articles examine the case law governing personal knowledge requirements in no-show defenses.
Read Our Personal knowledge of no-show Articles
Ameriprise loses summary judgment motion due to lack of personal knowledge proof for EUO no-shows, following the established Alrof precedent in New York no-fault law.
Alrof hits Ameriprise — Read Article →
Two conflicting New York Civil Court decisions highlight ongoing debate over EUO no-show requirements and proper practice procedures in no-fault insurance cases.
Alrof”t” (read the cited to decisions) — Read Article →
Natural Therapy Acupuncture v State Farm: Court sustains EUO no-show defense, reinforcing insurer burden of proof for scheduling letters and attorney presence.
EUO no-show defense sustained — Read Article →
Walking out of an EUO leads to disclaimer and coverage denial. Court rules insured who departed mid-examination breached policy conditions in NY no-fault case.
Walking out of an EUO leads to a disclaimer and a whole lot more — Read Article →
SP Chiropractic v. IDS shows another court citing Alrof's flawed requirement for personal knowledge proof of EUO no-shows, highlighting ongoing insurance defense failures.
An ALROF citing — Read Article →Need Legal Guidance?
Get a Free Case Evaluation
No fees unless we win. Available 24/7.
Master Arbitrator Dachs analyzes IDS v. Stracar on EUO compliance requirements, partial performance standards, and carrier response obligations in New York no-fault cases.
Master Arbitrator Dachs discusses IDS v. Stracar — Read Article →
Court cites problematic Alrof precedent again for EUO no-shows, highlighting ongoing issues with personal knowledge requirements in no-fault insurance cases.
Alrof citing again – never a good thing — Read Article →
Learn how certified EUO transcripts can prove no-shows in New York no-fault insurance cases, as demonstrated in Active Chiropractic v Praetorian Insurance.
No-show proved through certified transcripts — Read Article →
Natural Therapy Acupuncture v State Farm: Court upholds EUO no-show denial when insurer proves proper notice and attorney confirms plaintiff's failure to appear.
EUO no show substantiated — Read Article →
Second Department's Interboro v Clennon decision analysis on no-fault EUO compliance and material breach standards for Long Island personal injury attorneys.
So what did the Second Department mean? — Read Article →
Learn when insurance companies can deny coverage for EUO non-compliance. Expert legal guidance on examination under oath requirements in NY. Call 516-750-0595.
Understanding EUO Denial: When Insurance Companies Can Substantiate Coverage Denials — Read Article →
Court ruling clarifies personal knowledge requirements for proving EUO no-shows in no-fault insurance cases, emphasizing detailed business practice affidavits.
Personal knowledge is well not too personal — Read Article →
Court ruling confirms that proper mailing procedures and attorney's personal knowledge can establish EUO no-shows, setting important precedent for no-fault insurance disputes.
EUO no-show mailing and personal knowledge substantiated — Read Article →
Court ruling establishes that investigator affidavits and on-record statements provide sufficient proof of no-show at scheduled EUOs in no-fault insurance cases.
Proof of the no-show — Read Article →
Court rejects insurance company's EUO no-show motion due to defective affidavit lacking personal knowledge, highlighting critical evidentiary requirements in no-fault cases.
Alrof Safeco made another sighting — Read Article →
Court rules attorney affidavit lacking personal knowledge insufficient for EUO no-show summary judgment in New York no-fault case
Personal knowledge became more personal — Read Article →
Court confirms insurer's summary judgment when assignor failed to appear at both IME and EUO after proper notice, citing Unitrin precedent for no-fault claims.
Assignor did not show up to his IME and EUO – double whammy — Read Article →
New York court ruling confirms attorney affirmations stating claimants failed to appear at EUOs are sufficient evidence to establish no-show defense in no-fault cases.
An attorney's statement, i.e., "he did not show up" is sufficient to support EUO defense — Read Article →
New York court grants summary judgment when claimant fails to attend properly scheduled EUO after timely mailing of scheduling letters established proper notice.
EUO letters were mailed and the Claimant failed to attend the EUO: summary judgment granted — Read Article →
Court ruling establishes that a law firm partner's affirmation can effectively prove a plaintiff's failure to appear at a scheduled examination under oath.
Partner's affirmation demonstrated the "no-show" component of an EUO no-show defense — Read Article →
Expert analysis of EUO personal knowledge requirements for non-appearances in NY no-fault law. Long Island & NYC legal guidance. Call 516-750-0595.
Personal Knowledge Requirements for EUO Non-Appearances: NY Legal Standards — Read Article →The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum publishes detailed legal analysis on personal knowledge of no-show and related topics as part of an ongoing commitment to legal education and transparency. Since 2008, Attorney Tenenbaum has written over 2,353 articles examining how New York courts decide cases involving personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and complex litigation matters. Each article is based on an actual court decision and provides the kind of substantive analysis that practitioners and clients need to understand the current state of the law.
Attorney Tenenbaum brings over 24 years of New York litigation experience to every article. His practice spans Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He has handled thousands of cases involving insurance disputes, personal injury claims, and employment law matters, giving him a practical perspective that academic commentators often lack. The articles in this collection reflect that experience, offering readers insight into how judges actually apply legal standards in contested cases.
If you are dealing with a legal issue related to personal knowledge of no-show or any topic covered on this blog, the firm offers free initial consultations by phone or in person. Call (516) 750-0595 to speak with an attorney, or visit the contact page to submit a case review request online. No fee is charged unless the firm recovers compensation on your behalf. The firm's six attorneys bring over 112 combined years of legal experience and speak English, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, and Russian, ensuring clients can communicate in the language they are most comfortable with. Attorney Tenenbaum is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts, and he has authored more than 2,353 published legal articles that attorneys, judges, and insurance professionals across the state rely on for guidance.
New York's legal framework for personal knowledge of no-show matters involves an intricate web of statutes, regulations, and case law that has developed over decades. The state's court system — including the Civil Court, District Courts, Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Appellate Division, and Court of Appeals — each plays a distinct role in shaping how personal knowledge of no-show cases are litigated and decided. Trial-level decisions in Nassau County Supreme Court, Suffolk County Supreme Court, and the New York City Civil Courts establish important factual precedents, while appellate rulings create binding legal standards that all lower courts must follow.
The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs procedure in New York civil litigation and contains provisions that directly impact personal knowledge of no-show cases. CPLR Article 31 establishes the scope and methods of disclosure, including depositions under CPLR 3107, interrogatories under CPLR 3130, and document demands under CPLR 3120. CPLR 3212 provides the standard for summary judgment, requiring the movant to establish a prima facie case through admissible evidence and shifting the burden to the opponent to raise a triable issue of fact. CPLR 3215 governs default judgments, which require proof of service, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the amount due. Understanding these procedural tools is essential for anyone involved in personal knowledge of no-show litigation in New York.
Statutes of limitations vary significantly depending on the type of claim. General negligence and personal injury claims carry a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5). Medical malpractice claims have a shortened two-and-a-half-year deadline under CPLR 214-a. Claims against municipalities require a Notice of Claim within 90 days under General Municipal Law Section 50-e. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including the 30-day filing window for applications and the 45-day submission period for provider claims. Employment discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law generally have a three-year statute of limitations, while federal Title VII claims require EEOC filing within 300 days.
The Appellate Term and Appellate Division regularly issue decisions that clarify and refine the legal standards applicable to personal knowledge of no-show cases. The Second Department, which covers Long Island and parts of New York City, is particularly active in this area. Its decisions on evidentiary standards, burden-shifting frameworks, and procedural requirements directly affect how trial courts evaluate motions and how attorneys prepare their cases. Attorney Tenenbaum monitors these decisions and analyzes them in the articles on this page, providing practitioners with the timely legal commentary they need to stay current.
The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. is located at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746, centrally situated on Long Island to serve clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and the five boroughs of New York City. With over 24 years of experience and more than 1,000 appeals written, Attorney Tenenbaum combines deep legal knowledge with practical courtroom experience. If you need help with a personal knowledge of no-show matter, call (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Successful outcomes in personal knowledge of no-show cases often depend on procedural compliance as much as substantive merit. In no-fault insurance litigation, the prima facie case standard requires the plaintiff to submit admissible evidence establishing the claim was properly submitted, overdue, and unpaid. If the defendant raises a defense — such as an IME no-show, EUO non-appearance, lack of medical necessity, or fee schedule dispute — the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence creating a triable issue of fact. Summary judgment motions under CPLR 3212 require the movant to make a prima facie showing through affidavits, deposition testimony, or documentary evidence, and the opposition must raise a genuine factual dispute to avoid dismissal.
In personal injury cases, the discovery process is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions of parties and witnesses, exchange of medical records under CPLR 3121 authorizations, physical and mental examinations, and expert disclosure. Once discovery is complete, either party may file a note of issue certifying readiness for trial, after which a 120-day deadline applies for filing summary judgment motions under CPLR 3212(a). Motion practice often determines the outcome of cases before trial, and understanding the specific evidentiary standards applied by courts in your jurisdiction is essential. The articles on this page analyze these standards in detail, drawing on real cases litigated by Attorney Tenenbaum and decisions from courts across the state.
The firm serves clients throughout Long Island, including the towns and villages of Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, and Massapequa, as well as all five boroughs of New York City. Attorney Tenenbaum regularly appears in Nassau County Supreme Court, Suffolk County Supreme Court, the New York City Civil Court, the American Arbitration Association, the Workers' Compensation Board, and the Appellate Term and Appellate Division of the Second Department. If you need legal assistance with a personal knowledge of no-show matter or any topic discussed in these articles, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, confidential case evaluation.
The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. was founded in 2002 and has grown into one of Long Island's most respected personal injury, employment law, and insurance litigation firms. The firm's six attorneys — led by founding partner Jason Tenenbaum — bring over 112 combined years of legal experience to every case. The team speaks English, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, and Russian, ensuring that clients from diverse backgrounds can communicate in the language they are most comfortable with during what is often one of the most stressful periods of their lives.
Attorney Tenenbaum earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law and is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. He has written more than 1,000 appellate briefs, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for injured individuals and workers throughout Long Island and New York City. His 2,353+ published legal articles on New York case law make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state, and his analysis is relied upon by attorneys, judges, and insurance professionals across all four Appellate Division departments.
The firm operates on a contingency fee basis for personal injury and employment discrimination cases, which means clients pay no attorney fees unless the firm recovers compensation on their behalf. Every consultation is free, confidential, and without obligation. The firm's centrally located Huntington Station office provides convenient access to Nassau County Supreme Court in Mineola, Suffolk County Supreme Court in Riverhead, the Nassau County District Court, Suffolk County courts in Central Islip, and the New York City Civil Court. Whether you need help with a car accident claim, a workplace discrimination complaint, a no-fault insurance denial, a workers' compensation dispute, or any other legal matter, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. is ready to fight for your rights.
Questions About Personal knowledge of no-show?
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has been writing about personal knowledge of no-show since 2008, drawing on 24+ years of practice. Get a free, confidential case evaluation.
No fees unless we win · Available 24/7 · Hablamos Español
Injured? Don't Wait.
Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today
No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.