January 16, 2026
Bridgeview Supply Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50190(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/bridgeview-supply-corp-v-nationwide-mut-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op50190u/
- Decided
- January 16, 2026
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 50190(U) · 88 Misc 3d 128(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Issues
- EUO no-show
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Bridgeview Supply Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50190(U))
[*1]| Bridgeview Supply Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 50190(U) [88 Misc 3d 128(A)] |
| Decided on January 16, 2026 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on January 16, 2026
PRESENT: : WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J., MARINA CORA MUNDY, LISA S. OTTLEY, JJ
2025-36 Q C
against
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.
Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Gabriel & Moroff, P.C. (Jay Koo and Koenig Pierre of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Sandra Perez, J.), dated October 29, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court (Sandra Perez, J.) entered October 31, 2024 as denied defendant’s motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court found, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs. The Civil Court further found that there was a “triable issue of fact surrounding the EUOs,” because “[p]laintiff . . . established that [it] objected to the reasonableness of each . . . request” for an EUO.
In order “to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment based on a failure to appear for an EUO, an insured need only demonstrate as a matter of law that it duly scheduled at least two EUOs; that the party failed to appear as requested; and that the insurer timely issued a denial of the claim or claims on that ground ‘following the [] failure to appear at the last scheduled EUO’ ” (Northern Med. Care, P.C. v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., 84 Misc 3d 136[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 51822[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud [*2]Dists 2024], quoting Quality Health Supply Corp. v Nationwide Ins., 216 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2023]; see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596 [2014]). The Civil Court found, in effect, that the first two elements of defendant’s prima facie case had been established pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g). As part of this prima facie showing, an insurer is “not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs” (Northern Med. Care, P.C. v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., 2024 NY Slip Op 51822[U], *1-2; see Parisien v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 75 Misc 3d 138[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50581[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]; 21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 69 Misc 3d 142[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51364[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; Bronx Chiropractic Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins., 63 Misc 3d 132[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50423[U], *1-2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]).
The affidavits submitted by defendant constitute prima facie evidence that the denial of claim form had been timely mailed in accordance with defendant’s standard office practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]). Plaintiff did not submit an affidavit to refute this evidence, nor did it challenge the implicit CPLR 3212 (g) findings in defendant’s favor with respect to the first two elements of defendant’s prima facie case. Plaintiff’s objection letters, in which plaintiff alleged that defendant did not have an objective basis for requesting an EUO, do not raise a triable issue of fact (see MUA Chiropractic Healthcare, PLLC v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 77 Misc 3d 140[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 51384[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2022]; NY Wellness Med., P.C. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 75 Misc 3d 126[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50359[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2022]; Bronx Chiropractic Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins., 2019 NY Slip Op 50423[U], *1-2; Dynamic Balance Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins., 62 Misc 3d 145[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50171[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Jennifer Chan
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: January 16, 2026
Legal questions (3)
Questions of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
Did the insurer prove its IME/EUO no-show defense: mailed, compliant scheduling requests and the claimant’s nonappearance?
This decision: Insurer proved mailed, compliant requests and the nonappearance; claimant's answers rejected
Held the insurer need not state objective reasons for EUOs and the provider's objection letters disputing the basis raised no triable issue against the established mailing and nonappearance.
Of the 858 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 527 (this one included) are in the same category.
Is an IME/EUO no-show defense precluded if the insurer did not timely deny the claim on that ground?
This decision: Timely denial required as part of the no-show defense, and the insurer showed it (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Applied the rule that the insurer must show a timely denial after the last scheduled EUO and held its affidavits proved the denial was timely mailed.
Of the 508 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 338 (this one included) are in the same category.
Did a party’s evidence establish that it mailed a no-fault claim, denial, verification request or examination notice?
This decision: The insurer's (or its agent's) proof established mailing of its denial, verification request or IME/EUO notice (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)
Held the insurer's affidavits were prima facie evidence that the denial form was timely mailed under its standard office practices, unrefuted by the provider.
Of the 1,400 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 809 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Northern Med. Care, P.C. v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. (2024 NY Slip Op 51822(U)) FollowedAn insurer may timely schedule more than two EUOs and deny a claim within the required period after the last scheduled EUO. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order, insofar as appealed from, granting the insurer summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
- Quality Health Supply Corp. v Nationwide Ins. (2023 NY Slip Op 02689)The insurer established timely EUO notices and denials, proper follow-up, and the assignor's nonappearances.
- Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon (2014 NY Slip Op 00092)The assignor's two EUO nonappearances supported a declaration that the providers were not entitled to no-fault benefits.
- 21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51364(U)) FollowedAn insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
- Bronx Chiropractic Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 50423(U)) FollowedAn insurer need not disclose the reasons or objective standards for its EUO demands in scheduling letters or in response to a provider's objection.
- St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 04072) FollowedThe insurer raised factual issues concerning a proper timely denial and its entitlement to deny the hospital's claim.
- MUA Chiropractic Healthcare, PLLC v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 51384(U)) FollowedAn insurer need not state objective reasons for provider EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
- NY Wellness Med., P.C. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50359(U)) FollowedAn insurer need not set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.
- Dynamic Balance Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 50171(U)) FollowedThe provider's challenge to the EUO demands failed because it offered no proof of mailing its objection letter.
Similar decisions
- Allstate Chiropractic, P.C. v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. (2023 NY Slip Op 50299(U))The insurer failed to establish timely denials because scheduling another EUO did not extend the deadline after the second nonappearance.
- MSB Physical Therapy, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2025 NY Slip Op 50830(U))The insurer established timely EUO requests, the provider's nonappearance at each scheduled EUO, and timely, proper denials.
- Brefni Chiropractic Diagnostics, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51518(U))The insurer's attorney affirmation alone established the provider's EUO nonappearance; corroborating transcripts were unnecessary.
- Hands On Physical Therapy Care v Nationwide Ins. (2022 NY Slip Op 50797(U))The insurer failed to establish timely EUO nonappearance denials for the provider's first three causes of action.
- FJL Med. Servs., P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2022 NY Slip Op 51213(U))An insurer cannot extend the claim determination toll after a second EUO nonappearance by unilaterally scheduling further EUOs. The insurer recorded four provider nonappearances and denied the claim more than 30 days after the second.