The Second Department reiterated that mere errors of law do not permit vacatur of a master arbitrator's award (Nostrand Drugs), and found conclusory claims that missing records hampered opposition, with no described efforts to obtain them, no reasonable excuse for a default (Villanueva). In two RVA Leasing decisions the Appellate Term, First Department, applied the rule that missing initial and follow-up EUOs violates a condition precedent to coverage, one accepting counsel's affidavit of office mailing practices that also swore, on personal knowledge, that they were followed. Civil Court, Kings County, held that Mayzenberg does not govern investigatory-phase verification requests, including those bearing on licensing eligibility (Burke 2 Physical Therapy).
Our summary of the month’s decisions, not the courts’ words.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Sep 23, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 05400
Insurer prevailed
The provider's petition to vacate a master arbitration award was denied because it showed no statutory ground for vacatur. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the CPLR article 75 petition challenging an award rejecting reimbursement for prescription medications. The court relied on CPLR 7511's narrow grounds for vacatur and the insufficiency of mere legal errors; remaining contentions were unpreserved or unnecessary to reach.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Sep 23, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 05393
Insurer prevailed
The claimant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for defaulting in opposition to the insurer's petition to stay UM arbitration. After the claimant missed a court-ordered deadline for written opposition, Supreme Court permanently stayed arbitration of the alleged hit-and-run claim. Relief under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) required both a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense. Conclusory assertions that missing medical records and a purported police report hampered opposition were insufficient because the claimant did not explain efforts to obtain them. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, insofar as appealed from, denying vacatur and found it unnecessary to consider a potentially meritorious defense.
Appellate Term, First Department
Sep 22, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 51528(U)
Insurer prevailed
The provider's failure to attend the initial and follow-up EUOs violated a condition precedent to coverage. The Appellate Term, First Department, reversed the order and granted the insurer's unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the no-fault complaint. The insurer established that it timely and properly mailed the EUO scheduling notices and that the provider failed to appear. The provider's challenge to the reasonableness of the EUO requests was raised for the first time on appeal and was therefore unpreserved for review.
Appellate Term, First Department
Sep 22, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 51527(U)
Insurer prevailed
The insurer established timely mailing of the provider's EUO notices, nonappearance and an objective basis for the EUOs. The Appellate Term, First Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the no-fault complaint. The insurer's attorney described the office's standard mailing practices and procedures and represented under penalty of perjury, with personal knowledge, that those procedures were followed. This adequately proved mailing of the scheduling letters, and the provider failed to appear at the initial and follow-up EUOs. The provider raised no factual issue, and the insurer supplied a specific objective justification under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (e).
Trial court, Second Department
Sep 24, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 26164
Insurer prevailed
The provider failed to raise a factual issue concerning compliance with verification requests within 120 days. The Civil Court, Kings County, granted the insurer's summary judgment motion, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and denied the provider's cross motion as moot. Under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (o), the insurer established nonreceipt of requested documents, while the provider supplied neither proof of compliance nor reasonable justification. Its owner's affidavit gave inconsistent mailing addresses and lacked corroborating documents. Government Employees Ins. Co. v Mayzenberg did not bar requests investigating licensing eligibility under 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12): the denial rested on noncompliance with verification, without a conclusive finding of professional misconduct. The court declined to consider an amended cross motion served 18 months after the insurer's opposition and reply.
Trial court, Second Department
Sep 3, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 51460(U)
Provider prevailed
The insurer failed to establish its intoxication exclusion or fee-schedule defense through competent, admissible evidence. The Civil Court, Kings County, denied its summary judgment motion in full. Under Westchester Med. Ctr. v Government Empls. Ins. Co., the insurer had to prove intoxication or impairment and that the injuries resulted from operating a vehicle in that condition. Unauthenticated medical records and a police report lacked an admissible foundation under CPLR 4518 or another evidentiary rule, and the assignor's EUO testimony disputed intoxication. The insurer also supplied no competent proof that the charges exceeded the applicable fee schedule. The court made no finding of intoxication or causation and left both defenses for proof at trial.
