When is 2% no-fault interest tolled because the claimant delayed suing, arbitrating, prosecuting or collecting?

Short answer: Settled statewide by the Court of Appeals. The 65-3.9 (c) toll is settled statewide: the Court of Appeals (LMK, 2009) held it applies regardless of whether the denial was timely, reversing the Third Department's contrary holding, and the Second Department (East Acupuncture, 2009) held it applies to provider assignees, resolving a trial-court split; no later appellate decision in the database departs from either. The 65-3.9 (d) exception for unreasonable delay is applied by the Appellate Division in both the First (WJW, 2023) and Second (563 Grand, 2026) Departments and in a long Appellate Term, Second Department line (Aminov 2014 onward); what varies is the application to the facts. On delay after a settlement or judgment, the Appellate Term, Second Department draws a consistent line: no toll between a settlement and entry of judgment (CPLR 5003-a) or while an entered judgment goes unpaid unless the claimant prevented payment (B.Z. 2017, Craniofacial 2018, Seaside 2019, Berenblit 2019/2025), but a toll for decades of delay in having judgment entered after a trial or inquest (Herman 2022, Orthotics 2022).

Scope. Deciding this question means ruling on whether, and for what period, the 2% per month interest on overdue no-fault benefits (Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 [a], former 65.15 [h]) stopped accruing because of the claimant's own delay: (1) the 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (c) toll when the applicant or assignee does not request arbitration or sue within 30 days after receiving a denial (or a payment), so that interest accrues only from the filing (LMK: even after an untimely denial; East Acupuncture: assignees too); (2) the 65-3.9 (d) exception for an applicant who 'unreasonably delays the arbitration or court proceeding' (years of inaction, delay in entering judgment after a trial or inquest, delay in filing notice of entry); and (3) requests to stop interest after a settlement or judgment because the claimant waited to enter or enforce it. A ruling that no toll applies (no denial issued or proven, suit started within 30 days, delay not unreasonable or not the claimant's, insurer free to pay) decides the question as much as a ruling that imposes one.

Based on 79 decisions in our database, the most recent decided July 8, 2026.

Leading authorities · Governing regulations · Authority map · Decisions by court · Plain-text version (Markdown)

Leading authorities

LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 02481) Court of Appeals, 200965-3.9 (c) toll applies even after an untimely denialThe Superintendent's reading of 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (c), that interest is tolled when the claimant does not sue or arbitrate within 30 days after a denial whether or not the denial was timely, is rational and binding; the Appellate Division erred in denying the insurer the toll, and interest must be recalculated applying it.
The Superintendent has interpreted this provision to mandate that the accrual of interest is tolled, regardless of whether the particular denial at issue was timely.
Later history: Reverses LMK Psychological Servs. v State Farm, 46 AD3d 1290 (3d Dept 2007) (post 9298)
East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 01191) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2009Toll applies to provider assignees, not only injured persons'Applicant' in 65-3.9 (c) covers provider assignees as well as injured persons, so the toll applies to an assignee that did not sue within 30 days of the denials; interest on the untimely denied claims accrued only from the filing of the complaint.
we hold that the term “applicant,” as used in 11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (c), refers to both provider/assignees and injured persons and that the toll on statutory interest provided for therein applies to no-fault claims submitted to insurers by both types of claimants.
Later history: Affirms East Acupuncture v Allstate, 15 Misc 3d 104 (App Term 2007) (post 9284), which reversed the Civil Court, 8 Misc 3d 849 (post 10126)
Matter of 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 04291) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026Unreasonable delay in arbitration excluded from interest (65-3.9 [d])Applying 65-3.9 (d), the master arbitrator's determination that the provider did not unreasonably delay the arbitration between the 2003 dismissal and the 2018 re-filing lacked evidentiary support and a rational basis; that period must be excluded from the (compound) interest calculation.
Under the circumstances of this case, the determination that Grand Medical did not unreasonably delay the arbitration proceeding during the period of September 10, 2003, through November 6, 2018, lacked evidentiary support and a rational basis, and this period should have been excluded from the calculation of interest on Grand Medical’s claims
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v WJW Med. Prods., Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 06472) Appellate Division, First Department, 2023First Department: no interest during unexplained delay in notice of entrySupreme Court properly declined to award interest for the roughly three months the provider took to file notice of entry of the order confirming the award, far beyond the 10 days allowed, because the provider did not explain why the delay was reasonable under 65-3.9 (d).
WJW’s roughly three months of delay in filing a notice of entry went far beyond the 10 days that the February 11, 2021 confirmation order had allotted for the filing. WJW fails to explain why this delay should be considered reasonable (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.9[d]).
Aminov v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 24066) Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014Years of claimant inaction stop interest; insurer need not move caseInterest began at commencement under 65-3.9 (c) (the denial was proven) and was properly suspended under 65-3.9 (d) for the seven years in which the provider took no action, until it filed a notice of trial; that the insurer could have moved the case forward is no answer.
Plaintiff’s argument that defendant should be required to pay interest for that period because defendant could have attempted to move the case forward lacks merit. It is plaintiff who brought this action and plaintiff should not be rewarded for his years of inaction by receiving a windfall of interest
Craniofacial Pain Mgt. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51825(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018No toll of interest on an unpaid judgment absent claimant obstructionInterest on a judgment is a penalty for delayed payment; because nothing the provider did prevented the insurer from paying, the Civil Court erred in tolling postjudgment interest for the years before the provider served notice of entry.
Contrary to defendant’s assertion, there is no evidence of actions or conduct by plaintiff which prevented defendant from paying the judgment
Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am. 208 AD2d 501Where a claim is never denied, interest runs from 30 days after presentment until payment; cited as the baseline (no toll) in ~34 decisions (Belt Parkway, Corona Hgts., Queens Neurology).Not in our database.
Massapequa Gen. Hosp. v Travelers Ins. Co. 104 AD2d 638Early statement that interest is stayed where the claimant fails to arbitrate or sue within 30 days of the denial (relied on by the App Term in East Acupuncture and Brooklyn Chiropractic).Not in our database.
ERHAL Holding Corp. v Rusin 252 AD2d 473Postjudgment interest is a penalty for delayed payment of a judgment; relied on (12 decisions) for refusing to toll interest after judgment or settlement absent creditor conduct preventing payment.Not in our database.
Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co. 90 NY2d 274Interest is the sanction for late payment, not for untimely denial; quoted in the App Term East Acupuncture decision on when interest accrues.Not in our database.

Governing regulations

Whether interest stops after a settlement, or on a judgment once entered, is decided under the CPLR (5003, 5003-a, 5004) and the case law, not by Part 65.

11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (c) Interest stops accruing if the applicant does not request arbitration or sue within 30 days after receiving a denial (or a payment computed under the regulations), until it does; under the case law the toll applies even when the denial was untimely, and to provider assignees.
11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (d) Once the dispute is in arbitration or court, interest accrues unless the applicant unreasonably delays the proceeding; applied by the case law to years of inaction and to delay in entering judgment or filing notice of entry.

Also relevant

Chosen by us from the regulation text and the decisions on this question that cite it. Each link opens our copy of the regulation, which is unofficial; the official text is in the NYCRR.

Authority map

Each circle is a decision on this question, placed by court and date; its colour is the position it took. Lines are citations between them. Select a circle (or find a decision by name) to see its links and summary. The same decisions are listed by court below the map.

Interest tolled under 65-3.9 (c): no arbitration or suit within 30 days after the denial, so interest runs only from the filingInterest suspended for a period of the claimant's unreasonable delay in the arbitration, action or entry of judgment (65-3.9 [d])Interest runs without suspension: the toll was not triggered or the delay was not unreasonable or not the claimant'sThe toll may apply but the court cannot decide on this record: remitted for calculation or a factual determinationRing: rules on the question, but another ground decided the caseContrasted, distinguished or limitedDeclined to follow, questioned, overruled or reversedCited Show ordinary citations

Layout

The map loads when you scroll to it.

How the rule was applied, by court

Court	Tolled: no timely suit	Tolled: claimant's delay	Not tolled	Remitted / not resolved	Total
Court of Appeals	1	0	0	0	1
Appellate Division, First Department	0	1	0	0	1
Appellate Division, Second Department	1	1	1	0	3
Appellate Division, Third Department	0	0	1	0	1
Appellate Term, First Department	0	0	0	2	2
Appellate Term, Second Department	4	16	26	0	46
Trial courts in the First Department	1	1	0	0	2
Trial courts in the Second Department	13	7	3	0	23

Decisions (79)

Every decision in our database that rules on this question: highest court first, then by department, newest first. 53 turn on it; the others rule on it alongside a different main ground (marked "also decides"). The one-sentence summaries describe what each court said on this question.

Court of Appeals (1 decision)

LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 02481) Leading case Court of Appeals, April 2, 2009Interest tolled under 65-3.9 (c): no arbitration or suit within 30 days after the denial, so interest runs only from the filingHeld the 65-3.9 (c) toll applies even when the insurer's denial was untimely, deferring to the Superintendent's rational interpretation, and directed recalculation of interest applying the toll because claimants should be encouraged to act promptly after any denial.

Appellate Division, First Department (1 decision)

Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v WJW Med. Prods., Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 06472) Leading case Appellate Division, First Department, December 19, 2023Interest suspended for a period of the claimant's unreasonable delay in the arbitration, action or entry of judgment (65-3.9 [d]) (also decides)Held interest properly denied for the roughly three months the provider took to file notice of entry of the confirmation order, far beyond the 10 days allotted, because it did not explain why the delay was reasonable.

Appellate Division, Second Department (3 decisions)

Matter of 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 04291) Leading case Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026Interest suspended for a period of the claimant's unreasonable delay in the arbitration, action or entry of judgment (65-3.9 [d])Held under 65-3.9 (d) that the period from the 2003 dismissal of the arbitration to its 2018 re-filing must be excluded from the interest calculation because the provider unreasonably delayed the arbitration.
East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 01191) Leading case Appellate Division, Second Department, February 17, 2009Interest tolled under 65-3.9 (c): no arbitration or suit within 30 days after the denial, so interest runs only from the filingHeld 'applicant' in 65-3.9 (c) covers provider assignees as well as injured persons, so interest on the untimely denied claims did not accrue until the assignee filed its complaint, deferring to the Superintendent's reasonable interpretation.
New York & Presbyterian Hospital v Allstate Insurance Company (2006 NY Slip Op 04815) Appellate Division, Second Department, June 13, 2006Interest runs without suspension: the toll was not triggered or the delay was not unreasonable or not the claimant's (also decides)Held interest was wrongly cut off at the date of the determination and suspended until entry of judgment; the insurer owed 2% monthly interest from 30 days after each claim was presented until the claim was paid.

Appellate Division, Third Department (1 decision)

LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 10443) Appellate Division, Third Department, December 27, 2007Interest runs without suspension: the toll was not triggered or the delay was not unreasonable or not the claimant'sRejected the insurer's request to toll interest between 30 days after the denials and commencement, holding the challenge unpreserved and in any event meritless because the toll applies only after a timely denial, which the insurer never issued.

Appellate Term, First Department (2 decisions)

Hilda-Bloor Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2013 NY Slip Op 50382(U)) Appellate Term, First Department, March 20, 2013The toll may apply but the court cannot decide on this record: remitted for calculation or a factual determination (also decides)Remanded for recalculation of interest because the award ignored the 65-3.9(c) toll the insurer raised, noting that if it applies interest runs from commencement rather than stopping entirely.
Devonshire Surgical Facility v American Transit Insurance Company (2011 NY Slip Op 51660(U)) Appellate Term, First Department, September 9, 2011The toll may apply but the court cannot decide on this record: remitted for calculation or a factual determination (also decides)Affirmed summary judgment for the providers but remanded for calculation of interest from 30 days after the claims, taking into account the applicability, if any, of the 65.15(h)(3) toll.

Appellate Term, Second Department (46 decisions)

Pacific Med. Servs., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50808(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, May 22, 2026Interest runs without suspension: the toll was not triggered or the delay was not unreasonable or not the claimant'sHeld the trial court erred in sua sponte tolling all interest on a settlement judgment the insurer never paid, vacating the toll and directing a new judgment with interest.
Air Plus Surgical Supply, Inc. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50809(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, May 22, 2026Interest runs without suspension: the toll was not triggered or the delay was not unreasonable or not the claimant'sFor the reasons stated in an earlier Appellate Term decision, vacated the Civil Court's sua sponte toll of all statutory interest on the unpaid settlement, granted recalculation at the compound rate and remitted for a new judgment.
Health Value Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50677(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, February 27, 2026Interest runs without suspension: the toll was not triggered or the delay was not unreasonable or not the claimant's (also decides)Rejected the insurer's request to toll interest for the provider's years of delay in entering judgment after a settlement, but moved the interest start to when settlement papers were tendered under CPLR 5003-a.
GC Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 50835(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, May 16, 2025Interest runs without suspension: the toll was not triggered or the delay was not unreasonable or not the claimant'sRejected the insurer's claim that its deposit of the judgment amount with the Department of Finance to stay execution pending appeal stopped interest, holding that no-fault interest keeps accruing until the judgment is satisfied, so the deposit could not satisfy it.
Berenblit v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 50487(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, March 21, 2025Interest runs without suspension: the toll was not triggered or the delay was not unreasonable or not the claimant'sVacated the sua sponte toll of interest for the fifteen years between settlement and entry of judgment because the insurer was obliged to pay under CPLR 5003-a, the provider need not demand payment, and nothing the provider did prevented payment.
Biotech Surgical Supply, Inc. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50118(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, January 26, 2024Interest runs without suspension: the toll was not triggered or the delay was not unreasonable or not the claimant'sVacated the sua sponte toll from the settlement to the provider's motion, because the settling insurer had to pay under CPLR 5003-a, the provider need not demand payment, and nothing the provider did prevented payment.
Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50119(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, January 26, 2024Interest runs without suspension: the toll was not triggered or the delay was not unreasonable or not the claimant'sVacated the sua sponte toll from the settlement to the original judgment, because the settling insurer had to pay under CPLR 5003-a, the provider need not demand payment, and the insurer showed no provider obstruction.
Medtech Med. Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2023 NY Slip Op 50277(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, February 24, 2023Interest runs without suspension: the toll was not triggered or the delay was not unreasonable or not the claimant's (also decides)Rejected the insurer's argument that interest relief should be denied for the provider's delay in entering judgment after the settlement, while granting recalculation at the compound rate.

Show all 46 decisions

Loading the list… If it does not appear, the full list is in the plain-text version.

Trial courts in the First Department (2 decisions)

Devonshire Surgical Facility v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50793(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, March 14, 2011Interest suspended for a period of the claimant's unreasonable delay in the arbitration, action or entry of judgment (65-3.9 [d])Tolled interest from 30 days after summary judgment was rendered, because the provider waited months to enter judgment and then over a year to correct its miscalculated interest, which was unreasonable delay under 65-3.9 (d).
Canarsie Med. Health, P.C. v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 28380) Supreme Court, New York County, September 17, 2008Interest tolled under 65-3.9 (c): no arbitration or suit within 30 days after the denial, so interest runs only from the filingUpheld the award of interest only from the arbitration filing date because the provider did not arbitrate within 30 days of the denials, holding 65-3.9 (c) a rational regulation consistent with Insurance Law 5106 (a).

Trial courts in the Second Department (23 decisions)

Life Care Physical Therapy P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50519(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, April 13, 2026Interest suspended for a period of the claimant's unreasonable delay in the arbitration, action or entry of judgment (65-3.9 [d]) (also decides)Although excusing the provider's delay in prosecuting, stayed interest from the insurer's dismissal motion until the notice of trial, reasoning that the provider's excusable delay should not benefit it.
Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2025 NY Slip Op 52018(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, December 17, 2025Interest suspended for a period of the claimant's unreasonable delay in the arbitration, action or entry of judgment (65-3.9 [d]) (also decides)After the insurer paid the principal, awarded simple 2% interest until payment and then statutory interest on that sum, but excluded about two years of interest because of the provider's inactivity in prosecuting the action.
John T. Mather Mem. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 24009) Supreme Court, Kings County, January 12, 2024Interest tolled under 65-3.9 (c): no arbitration or suit within 30 days after the denial, so interest runs only from the filing (also decides)Directed that interest accrue from the arbitration filing date under 65-3.9 (c) and 65-4.5 (s) (3), rather than from 30 days after the claim.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Trinity Pain Mgt. of Staten Is., PLLC (2023 NY Slip Op 51337(U)) Supreme Court, Kings County, December 8, 2023Interest tolled under 65-3.9 (c): no arbitration or suit within 30 days after the denial, so interest runs only from the filing (also decides)Directed, in confirming the award, that interest accrue from the arbitration filing date under 65-3.9 (c) and 65-4.5 (s) (3), at two percent per month simple.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50953(U)) Supreme Court, Kings County, September 8, 2023Interest tolled under 65-3.9 (c): no arbitration or suit within 30 days after the denial, so interest runs only from the filing (also decides)Held that because the provider did not request arbitration within 30 days after receiving the untimely denials, interest ran from the overdue date to the denial date and resumed only when arbitration was commenced.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Rutland Med., PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50814(U)) Supreme Court, Kings County, August 4, 2023Interest tolled under 65-3.9 (c): no arbitration or suit within 30 days after the denial, so interest runs only from the filing (also decides)Held interest on all claims ran only from the date the arbitration request was received, because the provider requested arbitration more than 30 days after the insurer's last denial.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging PC (2023 NY Slip Op50538(U)) Supreme Court, Kings County, May 28, 2023Interest tolled under 65-3.9 (c): no arbitration or suit within 30 days after the denial, so interest runs only from the filing (also decides)Held interest accrued only from the date the AAA received the arbitration request, because the provider did not seek arbitration within 30 days after receiving the timely denials, under 65-3.9 (c).
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50506(U)) Supreme Court, Kings County, May 25, 2023Interest tolled under 65-3.9 (c): no arbitration or suit within 30 days after the denial, so interest runs only from the filing (also decides)Held interest accrued only from the arbitration filing date, not 30 days after the claim, because the denial was timely and the provider requested arbitration more than 30 days after receiving it.

Show all 23 decisions

Loading the list… If it does not appear, the full list is in the plain-text version.

How this page is made: the decisions are those in our case-law database that cite this question's leading cases or were tagged with its subject. A language model read each one in full and recorded whether it rules on the question, the position it took and a one-sentence summary; a second, independent reading checked every entry. Court, department, date and the citation links come from the database. Read the decision before relying on it.