• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
  • Services
    • Search
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Services
    • Search
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
September 5, 2025

Brefni Chiropractic Diagnostics, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51518(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/brefni-chiropractic-diagnostics-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-51518u/

Court
Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided
September 5, 2025
Citation
2025 NY Slip Op 51518(U)
Posture
Summary judgment
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Later treatment
Followed in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
Issues
EUO no-show
Legal questions
No-show defense: insurer's proof (see the maps)
Cite as
Brefni Chiropractic Diagnostics, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 51518(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2025)

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.

The insurer's attorney affirmation alone established the provider's EUO nonappearance; corroborating transcripts were unnecessary. Counsel affirmed presence at the office on both scheduled dates, readiness to conduct the EUOs or assign another attorney, and the provider's failure to appear. The affirmation was not facially unworthy of belief or incredible as a matter of law, and the provider's challenge to counsel's recollection raised no triable issue. The provider also did not challenge the CPLR 3212 (g) findings establishing timely and proper mailing of scheduling letters and denials. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and granted the insurer summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Brefni Chiropractic Diagnostics, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51518(U))

[*1]
Brefni Chiropractic Diagnostics, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
2025 NY Slip Op 51518(U)
Decided on September 5, 2025
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 September 5, 2025
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : MARINA CORA MUNDY, J.P., WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JOANNE D. QUIÑONES, JJ
2024-1292 K C

Brefni Chiropractic Diagnostics, P.C., as Assignee of Maria Montanez, Respondent,

against

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Appellant.


Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (David M. Gottlieb of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sandra E. Roper, J.), entered May 31, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, 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, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court (Sandra E. Roper, J.) entered May 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). As relevant here, the Civil Court found, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had timely and properly mailed the letters scheduling plaintiff’s EUOs and the denial of claim forms, and limited the issues for trial to whether plaintiff failed to appear for the EUOs. The Civil Court held that defendant had not made a prima facie showing of plaintiff’s failure to appear for the scheduled EUOs because defendant did not submit the EUO transcripts to corroborate the attorney’s affirmation that was proffered to demonstrate plaintiff’s failures to appear.

Defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that plaintiff failed to appear for duly scheduled EUOs by submitting the affirmation of an attorney averring that he was present in his firm’s office, where the EUOs were scheduled to take place, on the dates on which the EUOs were scheduled; that he would have either conducted the EUOs himself or assigned another attorney to [*2]do so had plaintiff appeared for either scheduled EUO; and that plaintiff did not appear on either date (see e.g. MAZ Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 85 Misc 3d 135[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 50492[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2025]; SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO, 76 Misc 3d 134[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50931[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]; SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO, 76 Misc 3d 127[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50775[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]; Parisien v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 75 Misc 3d 138[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50581[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]). To the extent that plaintiff contends that an issue exists with respect to defendant’s counsel’s recollection of plaintiff’s failure to appear, such a contention lacks merit, as, on its face, counsel’s affirmation was not “unworthy of belief or incredible as a matter of law” (Joseph-Felix v Hersh, 208 AD3d 571, 573 [2022]; see e.g. MAZ Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 50492[U], *1-2; SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO, 2022 NY Slip Op 50931[U], *2). Consequently, this affirmation, standing alone, was sufficient proof of plaintiff’s failure to appear for the EUOs, and, contrary to the determination of the Civil Court, submission of the EUO transcripts was unnecessary (see e.g. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d 755, 757 [2020]; SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO, 2022 NY Slip Op 50931[U]; SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO, 2022 NY Slip Op 50775[U]; Parisien v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 2022 NY Slip Op 50581[U]).

As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding its failure to appear for either scheduled EUO or challenge the CPLR 3212 (g) findings in defendant’s favor, 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.

MUNDY, J.P., TOUSSAINT and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: September 5, 2025

Legal questions

A question 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.

No-show defense: insurer's proof

Open the full map

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 an attorney's affirmation that he was present at the EUO site and the provider did not appear sufficed to prove nonappearance without transcripts.

  • Appellate DivisionApp Div 10
  • Appellate TermApp Term 759
  • Trial courtsTrial 89
2023, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2022, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Requests not compliant)2020, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2016, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Mailing not proved)2015, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Mailing not proved)2014, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Defense proved)2006, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Mailing not proved)2004, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 No-show excused)2023, Appellate Term: 5 decisions (5 Defense proved)2022, Appellate Term: 45 decisions (37 Defense proved, 3 Mailing not proved, 3 Nonappearance not proved, 2 Requests not compliant)2021, Appellate Term: 22 decisions (16 Defense proved, 3 Mailing not proved, 1 Requests not compliant, 2 Triable issue)2020, Appellate Term: 30 decisions (26 Defense proved, 2 Mailing not proved, 2 Requests not compliant)2019, Appellate Term: 69 decisions (53 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved, 13 Requests not compliant, 1 Triable issue)2018, Appellate Term: 52 decisions (43 Defense proved, 3 Mailing not proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved, 5 Requests not compliant)2017, Appellate Term: 88 decisions (52 Defense proved, 16 Mailing not proved, 6 Nonappearance not proved, 11 Requests not compliant, 1 Triable issue, 2 No-show excused)2016, Appellate Term: 75 decisions (34 Defense proved, 15 Mailing not proved, 22 Nonappearance not proved, 3 Requests not compliant, 1 Triable issue)2015, Appellate Term: 77 decisions (48 Defense proved, 6 Mailing not proved, 14 Nonappearance not proved, 5 Requests not compliant, 4 Triable issue)2014, Appellate Term: 46 decisions (35 Defense proved, 5 Mailing not proved, 4 Nonappearance not proved, 2 Requests not compliant)2013, Appellate Term: 44 decisions (29 Defense proved, 6 Mailing not proved, 7 Nonappearance not proved, 1 Requests not compliant, 1 No-show excused)2012, Appellate Term: 51 decisions (37 Defense proved, 5 Mailing not proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved, 5 Requests not compliant, 2 Triable issue, 1 No-show excused)2011, Appellate Term: 33 decisions (27 Defense proved, 3 Mailing not proved, 2 Nonappearance not proved, 1 Triable issue)2010, Appellate Term: 14 decisions (9 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved, 2 Nonappearance not proved, 2 Requests not compliant)2009, Appellate Term: 15 decisions (6 Defense proved, 6 Mailing not proved, 2 Nonappearance not proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2008, Appellate Term: 7 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved, 4 Nonappearance not proved)2007, Appellate Term: 15 decisions (1 Defense proved, 6 Mailing not proved, 5 Nonappearance not proved, 3 Triable issue)2006, Appellate Term: 20 decisions (1 Defense proved, 9 Mailing not proved, 6 Requests not compliant, 4 Triable issue)2005, Appellate Term: 19 decisions (3 Defense proved, 10 Mailing not proved, 5 Requests not compliant, 1 No-show excused)2004, Appellate Term: 15 decisions (3 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved, 10 Requests not compliant, 1 Triable issue)2024, Appellate Term: 6 decisions (6 Defense proved)2025, Appellate Term: 7 decisions (7 Defense proved)2026, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (3 Defense proved)2003, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Requests not compliant)2023, Trial courts: 5 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant, 2 Triable issue)2022, Trial courts: 3 decisions (1 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2021, Trial courts: 10 decisions (8 Defense proved, 2 Requests not compliant)2020, Trial courts: 3 decisions (2 Mailing not proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2019, Trial courts: 5 decisions (3 Mailing not proved, 2 Requests not compliant)2018, Trial courts: 3 decisions (1 Defense proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2017, Trial courts: 6 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved, 2 Requests not compliant, 1 Triable issue)2016, Trial courts: 4 decisions (3 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2015, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2014, Trial courts: 5 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant, 1 Triable issue, 1 No-show excused)2013, Trial courts: 7 decisions (3 Defense proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved, 2 Requests not compliant, 1 No-show excused)2012, Trial courts: 5 decisions (2 Defense proved, 3 Requests not compliant)2010, Trial courts: 3 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2009, Trial courts: 2 decisions (2 Defense proved)2008, Trial courts: 4 decisions (2 Defense proved, 2 Requests not compliant)2007, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Mailing not proved)2006, Trial courts: 2 decisions (2 Mailing not proved)2005, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2004, Trial courts: 7 decisions (1 Defense proved, 2 Mailing not proved, 4 Requests not compliant)2024, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Mailing not proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2025, Trial courts: 4 decisions (3 Defense proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved)2026, Trial courts: 4 decisions (3 Defense proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved)2011, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)This decision
20052010201520202025
Defense provedMailing not provedNonappearance not provedRequests not compliantTriable issueNo-show excusedThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

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.

  • MAZ Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 50492(U)) FollowedThe insurer's attorney affirmation established the provider's failure to appear for scheduled EUOs. The affirmation recounted counsel's presence at the scheduled location, intention to conduct the EUOs if the provider appeared, and personal knowledge of the nonappearances.
  • SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO (2022 NY Slip Op 50931(U)) FollowedThe insurer's attorney's affirmation established the provider's failure to appear for scheduled EUOs. The attorney stated that she was present at the scheduled location and would have conducted the EUOs had the provider appeared, establishing personal knowledge of the nonappearances.
  • SVP Med Supply, Inc. v GEICO (2022 NY Slip Op 50775(U)) FollowedThe insurer's attorney affirmation established the provider's EUO nonappearances without specifying a particular time of day.
  • Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George (2020 NY Slip Op 02801) FollowedThe insurer proved timely EUO notices, two nonappearances by each assignor, and timely denials; the providers raised no factual issue.

Cited by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

  • GC Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51982(U)) FollowedThe insurer's attorney affirmation established the provider's EUO nonappearances despite being executed approximately three years later.

Similar decisions

  • Sanford Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50576(U))The insurer's attorney's affirmation established the provider's EUO nonappearances despite a challenge to proof of presence at the start times.
  • Bronx Chiropractic Care, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 51041(U))The insurer's transfer of claims between offices and the location generating timely EUO letters did not raise a triable issue.
  • Bridgeview Supply Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50190(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs as part of its prima facie showing for summary judgment based on nonappearance.
  • BNE Clinton Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50083(U))An insurer seeking summary judgment for EUO nonappearance need not prove timely mailing of prescribed forms upon learning of the accident.
  • Actual Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Ins. (2019 NY Slip Op 50421(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
Beynenson Law

Tech-driven New York no-fault collections for healthcare providers.

About the firm

Contact

  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Contact form

Case Law

  • Search
  • No-Fault AI
  • New Decisions
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations

Arbitration Data

  • Arbitrator Scorecard
  • Award Volume
  • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Attorney Data
  • Arbitration Pro Extension

©2026 The Beynenson Law Firm, PC. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Site by khrystev.dev

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website provides general information, not legal advice, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential information through this site.