September 22, 2026

RVA Leasing Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 51527(U))

Headnote

A provider, as assignee, sued Nationwide for first-party no-fault benefits, and the insurer moved for summary judgment based on the assignor's failure to appear for examinations under oath. The insurer's attorney submitted an affidavit describing the office's standard practices and procedures for mailing EUO scheduling letters and stated under penalty of perjury that he had personal knowledge those practices were followed. The Appellate Term held this was a prima facie showing that the notices were timely and properly mailed and that the assignor failed to appear at the initial and follow-up EUOs. The court also found that the insurer gave a specific objective justification for requesting the EUOs under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e). Plaintiff raised no issue of fact in opposition, so the court reversed and granted the insurer's motion dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at RVA Leasing Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 51527(U))

RVA Leasing Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

2026 NY Slip Op 51527(U)

Decided on September 22, 2026

Appellate Term, First 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Digest-Index Classification: Insurance—No-Fault Automobile Insurance-Timely Mailing of Notices for Examinations under Oath-Failure to Appear

RVA Leasing Corp. a/a/o Jordan Edmond, Plaintiff-Respondent,

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Decided on September 22, 2026

571015/26

Present: James, P.J., Brigantti, Alpert, JJ.

Defendant, as limited by its brief, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Wendy C. Li, J.), entered August 15, 2024, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[*1]

Per Curiam.

Order (Wendy C. Li, J.), entered August 15, 2024, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant-insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing this action for first-party, no-fault benefits should have been granted. Defendant made a prima facie showing that it timely and properly mailed the notices for examinations under oath [EUO] to plaintiff and that plaintiff failed to appear at the initial and follow-up EUOs (see Kemper Independence Ins. Co. v Cornerstone Chiropractic, P.C., 185 AD3d 468, 469 [2020]; Mapfre Ins. Co. of NY v Manoo, 140 AD3d 468, 470 [2016]; Town RX Inc. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 87 Misc 3d 132[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 51853[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2025]). The affidavit of defendant’s attorney sufficiently described the standard practices and procedures of his office for mailing EUO scheduling letters (see Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d 755, 757 [2020]; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Five Boro Med. Equip., Inc.,130 AD3d 465, 465-466 [2015]), and counsel further represented, under penalty of perjury, that he had personal knowledge that the described practices and procedures were followed (130 AD3d at 466). This represented adequate proof that the EUO letters were mailed to plaintiff.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise any issue of fact. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant provided a specific objective justification for conducting EUOs (see 11 NYCRR 65—3.5 [e]; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Mercado, 235AD3d 410, 410-411 [2025]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur concur

Decision Date: September 22, 2026