June 17, 2026
One RX Chemist, Inc. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 51309(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/one-rx-chemist-inc-v-nationwide-mut-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-51309u/
- Court
- Appellate Term, Second Department
- Decided
- June 17, 2026
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 51309(U) · 89 Misc 3d 131(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 One RX Chemist, Inc. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 51309(U))
| One RX Chemist, Inc. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 51309(U) [89 Misc 3d 131(A)] |
| Decided on June 17, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
One RX Chemist, Inc., as Assignee of Fanel St. Jean, Respondent,
v
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th And 13th Judicial Districts
Decided on June 17, 2026
2025-1324 Q C
Present: : Wavny Toussaint, P.J., Chereé A. Buggs, Joanne D. Quiñones, JJ
Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander and Christopher Volpe 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 February 27, 2025. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
[*1]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.) 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).
Here, it is undisputed that defendant established, prima facie, that it timely mailed its initial and follow-up EUO scheduling letters (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), that plaintiff failed to appear for the EUOs scheduled for December 17, 2021, January 14, 2022, and February 4, 2022, and that, after plaintiff failed to [*2]appear for the last scheduled EUO, defendant timely denied the subject claim on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for those EUOs. The Civil Court erred in denying defendant’s motion on the ground that an issue of fact exists as to the reasonableness of the EUO request (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596 [2014]; MUA Chiropractic Healthcare, PLLC v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 77 Misc 3d 140[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 51384[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]; see also 21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Ameriprise Ins. Co., 65 Misc 3d 134[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51629[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]). In any event, we note that the EUO scheduling letters and response letter provided plaintiff with the basis for the EUO request. As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response to defendant’s prima facie showing, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see First Class Med., P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co., 63 Misc 3d 135[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50477[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]; ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
TOUSSAINT, P.J., BUGGS and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Jennifer Chan
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: June 17, 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 proved mailing and three nonappearances, and the lower court erred in finding an issue of fact on the reasonableness of the EUO request.
Of the 837 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 518 (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)
Held the insurer established, undisputed, that it timely denied the claim on the no-show ground after the provider missed the last scheduled EUO.
Of the 457 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 308 (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)
Found it undisputed that the insurer established timely mailing of its initial and follow-up EUO scheduling letters.
Of the 1,341 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 798 (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.
- 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.
- MUA Chiropractic Healthcare, PLLC v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 51384(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for provider EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
- 21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51629(U))An insurer need not give objective reasons for EUO requests to establish entitlement to summary judgment based on nonappearance.
- First Class Med., P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50477(U))The insurer's EUO letters were sufficient because they identified the assignor, accident date and file number.
- ARCO Med. N.Y., P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 52382(U))A follow-up EUO request is not premature when sent within 10 days after failure to appear for the initial scheduled examination.
Similar decisions
- RX for You v Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. (2021 NY Slip Op 51171(U))The insurer's EUO nonappearance defense presented factual issues about the location's convenience and an agreed rescheduling.
- Town RX Inc. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51853(U))The insurer established mailing of EUO scheduling letters and the provider's failure to appear at properly scheduled EUOs. The Appellate Term, First Department, reversed the order, denied the provider's cross-motion for summary judgment, and granted the insurer's motion dismissing the no-fault complaint.
- Central Pharm., Inc. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 51557(U))The provider's objection to the EUO location did not raise a factual issue because every scheduling letter offered virtual attendance.
- 21st Century Pharm., Inc. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51364(U))An insurer need not state objective reasons for requesting EUOs to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment for nonappearance.
- RVA Leasing Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 51528(U))The provider's failure to attend the initial and follow-up EUOs violated a condition precedent to coverage.