September 18, 2026
Grand Plus Supply, Inc. v GEICO Indem. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 51588(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/grand-plus-supply-inc-v-geico-indem-co-2026-ny-slip-op-51588u/
- Decided
- September 18, 2026
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 51588(U) · 90 Misc 3d 129(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
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 Grand Plus Supply, Inc. v GEICO Indem. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 51588(U))
| Grand Plus Supply, Inc. v GEICO Indem. Co. |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 51588(U) [90 Misc 3d 129(A)] |
| Decided on September 18, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Grand Plus Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Erica F. Hamilton, Appellant,
v
GEICO Indemnity Company, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th And 13th Judicial Districts
Decided on September 18, 2026
2025-102 RI C
Present: : Chereé A. Buggs, J.P., Marina Cora Mundy, Karen Lin, JJ
Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (Galina Feldsherova of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Robert J. Helbock, Jr., J.), dated December 31, 2024. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
[*1]ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court (Robert J. Helbock, Jr., J.) granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
Contrary to plaintiff’s sole contention, the affidavits of defendant’s claims supervisor and defendant’s mail facility general manager were sufficient to establish, prima facie, that defendant had timely and properly mailed the EUO scheduling letters and NF-10 denial of claim form (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; First Spine Chiropractic of NY, P.C. v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., 77 Misc 3d 133[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 51252[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]; JCC Med., P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 71 Misc 3d 140[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50485[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th [*2]& 13th Jud Dists 2021]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect thereto.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
BUGGS, J.P., MUNDY and LIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Jennifer Chan
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 18, 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.
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
Held the insurer's affidavits established the timely and proper mailing of the NF-10 denial as part of its EUO no-show defense, entitling it to dismissal.
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
Held affidavits of the insurer's claims supervisor and mail facility general manager sufficed to establish timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and NF-10 denial, unrebutted 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.
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 claims supervisor's and mail facility manager's affidavits established prima facie timely mailing of the EUO scheduling letters, and the provider raised no triable issue.
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.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- 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.
- First Spine Chiropractic of NY, P.C. v Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. (2022 NY Slip Op 51252(U)) FollowedThe insurer's summary judgment dismissing claims for the assignor's EUO nonappearances was affirmed on proof of timely denial.
- JCC Med., P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50485(U)) FollowedProof of timely first-class mailing of EUO scheduling letters makes proof that copies were also sent by certified mail unnecessary.
Similar decisions
- SVP Med Supply, Inc. (B) v GEICO (2022 NY Slip Op 50585(U))The insurer's submissions established timely mailing of EUO notices and denials and the provider's failure to appear for scheduled EUOs. An affidavit described the insurer's standard office practices and procedures for mailing the scheduling letters and denial forms.
- SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO (2022 NY Slip Op 50927(U))The insurer's summary judgment dismissing the provider's claims for failure to appear at scheduled EUOs was affirmed.
- Warton Supplies, Inc. v GEICO (Gov Empls.) (2021 NY Slip Op 51253(U))The insurer's proof supported timely mailing presumptions for EUO notices and denials, and its staff counsel's affirmation was admissible.
- Warton Supplies, Inc. v GEICO Indem. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50770(U))The provider's challenge to an EUO nonappearance affirmation based on the attorney's status as insurer staff counsel was rejected.
- Warton Supplies, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50554(U))The insurer's attorney affirmation established the provider's failure to appear for scheduled EUOs, supporting summary judgment.