# 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.

- Decisions: 79 in the database, the most recent decided 2026-07-08
- Page: https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-topics/interest-tolling/

## Leading authorities

- [LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 02481)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lmk-psychological-servs-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-02481/) — Court of Appeals, 2009. 65-3.9 (c) toll applies even after an untimely denial: The 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.
- [East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 01191)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/east-acupuncture-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-01191/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2009. Toll 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.
- [Matter of 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 04291)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-563-grand-med-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-04291/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026. Unreasonable 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.
- [Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v WJW Med. Prods., Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 06472)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-country-wide-ins-co-v-wjw-med-prods-inc-2023-ny-slip-op-06472/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2023. First Department: no interest during unexplained delay in notice of entry: Supreme 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).
- [Aminov v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 24066)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/aminov-v-country-wide-ins-co-2014-ny-slip-op-24066/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014. Years of claimant inaction stop interest; insurer need not move case: Interest 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.
- [Craniofacial Pain Mgt. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51825(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/craniofacial-pain-mgt-v-allstate-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op-51825u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018. No toll of interest on an unpaid judgment absent claimant obstruction: Interest 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.
- Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v Insurance Co. of N. Am., 208 AD2d 501 (not in the database). Where 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).
- Massapequa Gen. Hosp. v Travelers Ins. Co., 104 AD2d 638 (not in the database). Early 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).
- ERHAL Holding Corp. v Rusin, 252 AD2d 473 (not in the database). Postjudgment 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.
- Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274 (not in the database). Interest is the sanction for late payment, not for untimely denial; quoted in the App Term East Acupuncture decision on when interest accrues.

## 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/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.
- [11 NYCRR 65-3.9 (a)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-3-9/#a) [also relevant]: Overdue benefits bear interest at two percent per month, computed pro rata on a 30-day month, and interest over $5 is paid without demand.
- [11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (a) (1)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-3-8/#a-1) [also relevant]: Benefits are overdue if not paid within 30 days after the insurer receives proof of claim, including all requested verification: the point from which interest runs unless tolled.
- [11 NYCRR 65-4.5 (s) (3)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-4-5/#s-3) [also relevant]: An arbitrator awarding interest computes it from 30 days after proof of claim to payment of the award, subject to the 65-3.9 (c) stay; a master arbitrator's award does the same subject to 65-3.9 (c) and (d) (65-4.10 (e) (1) (ii) (d)).

## Categories

- **Tolled: no timely suit**: The court holds that the 65-3.9 (c) (former 65.15 [h] [3]) toll applies: because the applicant or assignee did not request arbitration or commence the action within 30 days after receiving the denial (or payment), interest did not accumulate until arbitration was requested or the action commenced. Includes holdings that the toll applies even though the denial was untimely (LMK), that it applies to provider assignees (East Acupuncture), that the regulation is valid (Canarsie), that interest accrues from the filing or arbitration date rather than 30 days after the claim, and rulings fixing which act (filing or service) ends the toll, where the toll is applied to the claims in the case.
- **Tolled: claimant's delay**: The court holds that interest does not accrue, in whole or for a defined period, because the claimant unreasonably delayed the arbitration or court proceeding after it began (65-3.9 [d], former 65.15 [h]): years of inaction before a notice of trial or motion (Aminov, Kew Gardens, Vitality, A.M. Med., GPM), delay in entering judgment after a trial, inquest or summary judgment decision (Herman, Orthotics), an unexplained delay in filing notice of entry of a confirmation order (WJW), or a period of delay in pursuing an arbitration (563 Grand). Includes decisions that affirm or modify (shorten or lengthen) a toll period, and decisions that toll postjudgment interest because the claimant's conduct prevented payment.
- **Not tolled**: The court holds that interest accrues for the whole period sought, rejecting the requested toll or suspension: no denial was issued or its mailing was not proven, so the claim is overdue and interest runs from 30 days after the claim (Belt Parkway, Corona Hgts., Hempstead line); the action or arbitration was started within 30 days of the denial; the insurer did not show that the claimant unreasonably delayed the proceeding or that the delay was the claimant's (Eagle Surgical); or, after a settlement or judgment, nothing the claimant did prevented the insurer from paying, the prevailing party need not demand payment, and CPLR 5003-a obliges a settling insurer to pay (B.Z. 2017, Craniofacial, Seaside, Berenblit, Metro Med., Health Value). Also includes pre-2009 positions that the toll does not apply after an untimely denial (LMK, AD3 2007) or to provider assignees (East Acupuncture, Civ Ct 2005; Elmont).
- **Remitted / not resolved**: The court rules that the tolling provision is relevant but does not decide whether or for how long interest is tolled: it remits for recalculation 'taking into account the applicability, if any,' of the toll (Devonshire, App Term 1st 2011; Hilda-Bloor, App Term 1st 2013), finds an issue of fact about when the denial was received or whether the claimant's delay was unreasonable, or denies a toll request without prejudice to renewal on better proof (North Queens).

## Decisions (79)

Highest court first, then department, newest first. Each entry: court and date, the category, [central] where the result turns on this question or [also decides], then a one-sentence summary written by a language model from the decision and checked by a second reading.

### Court of Appeals

- [LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 02481)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lmk-psychological-servs-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-02481/) — Court of Appeals, 2009-04-02 — Tolled: no timely suit [central]: Held 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

- [Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v WJW Med. Prods., Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 06472)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-country-wide-ins-co-v-wjw-med-prods-inc-2023-ny-slip-op-06472/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2023-12-19 — Tolled: claimant's delay [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

- [Matter of 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 04291)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-563-grand-med-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-04291/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-07-08 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/east-acupuncture-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2009-ny-slip-op-01191/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2009-02-17 — Tolled: no timely suit [central]: Held '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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-presbyterian-hospital-v-allstate-insurance-company-2006-ny-slip-op-04815/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2006-06-13 — Not tolled [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

- [LMK Psychological Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 10443)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/lmk-psychological-servs-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op10443/) — Appellate Division, Third Department, 2007-12-27 — Not tolled [central]: Rejected 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

- [Hilda-Bloor Med., P.C. v MVAIC (2013 NY Slip Op 50382(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/hilda-bloor-med-p-c-v-mvaic-2013-ny-slip-op-50382u/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2013-03-20 — Remitted / not resolved [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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/devonshire-surgical-facility-v-american-transit-insurance-company-2011-ny-slip-op-51660u/) — Appellate Term, First Department, 2011-09-09 — Remitted / not resolved [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

- [Pacific Med. Servs., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50808(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pacific-med-servs-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-50808u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2026-05-22 — Not tolled [central]: Held 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/air-plus-surgical-supply-inc-v-country-wide-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-50809u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2026-05-22 — Not tolled [central]: For 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/health-value-med-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-50677u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2026-02-27 — Not tolled [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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gc-chiropractic-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op50835u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2025-05-16 — Not tolled [central]: Rejected 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/berenblit-v-country-wide-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-50487u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2025-03-21 — Not tolled [central]: Vacated 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/biotech-surgical-supply-inc-v-country-wide-ins-co-2024-ny-slip-op-50118u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2024-01-26 — Not tolled [central]: Vacated 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/metro-med-diagnostics-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2024-ny-slip-op-50119u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2024-01-26 — Not tolled [central]: Vacated 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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/medtech-med-supply-inc-v-country-wide-ins-co-2023-ny-slip-op50277u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2023-02-24 — Not tolled [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.
- [Orthotics & Professional Supply, Ltd. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 51221(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/orthotics-professional-supply-ltd-v-country-wide-ins-co-2022-nyslip-op-51221u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-12-09 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Tolled interest for the 17 years between the summary judgment order and the provider's application to enter judgment as unreasonable delay, but allowed interest before the order and while entry was pending.
- [NCT Diagnostics, Inc. v Countrywide Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 51247(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/nct-diagnostics-inc-v-countrywide-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op51247u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-12-02 — Not tolled [central]: Held the toll from settlement to the provider's motion was error because the settling insurer had to pay under CPLR 5003-a without demand and did not show the provider prevented payment.
- [Metro Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 51248(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/metro-med-diagnostics-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op51248u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-12-02 — Not tolled [central]: Held the sua sponte toll from settlement to the provider's motion was error because the insurer had to pay under CPLR 5003-a, the provider needed no demand, and nothing it did prevented payment.
- [Herman v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50916(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/herman-v-country-wide-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op-50916u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-09-09 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Upheld tolling of interest for the more than 20 years the provider waited after the inquest decision before moving to enter judgment, but restored interest awarded for the pre-inquest period.
- [Queens Neurology, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50356(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/queens-neurology-p-c-v-kemper-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op-50356u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-04-28 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Held interest properly ran only from the notice of trial because the provider failed to show it should accrue before commencement and the trial court implicitly found the provider unreasonably delayed the proceedings for years.
- [Biotech Surgical Supply v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50376(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/biotech-surgical-supply-v-country-wide-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op50376u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2022-04-22 — Not tolled [also decides]: Held the provider entitled to interest on the settlement judgment without suspension because the insurer did not show that the provider prevented it from paying the settlement amount.
- [GPM Chiropractic, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51521(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gpm-chiropractic-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op51521u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-12-18 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Held interest tolled for the period the provider took no meaningful action to prosecute the case, but shortened the toll to begin at the order deciding reargument rather than the earlier date the trial court chose.
- [A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 51520(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-m-med-servs-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op51520u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-12-18 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Affirmed tolling of statutory interest from January 2005 to July 2017 because the provider took no meaningful action after its summary judgment motion was denied until filing a notice of trial; the insurer's alleged discovery default did not shift the delay.
- [GPM Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC (2020 NY Slip Op 51301(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/gpm-chiropractic-p-c-v-mvaic-2020-ny-slip-op-51301u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-10-30 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Affirmed tolling interest from when the provider could have moved to compel discovery until a notice of trial is filed, because the provider unreasonably delayed the action and the insurer's unanswered discovery did not excuse it.
- [A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50502(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-m-med-servs-p-c-v-travelers-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50502u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-05-01 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Upheld the toll of interest from 2002 to 2017 for the provider's unreasonable delay in prosecuting the action, denying renewal because a later decision refusing a toll merely applied existing law to different facts.
- [A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50459(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-m-med-servs-p-c-v-travelers-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50459u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-04-24 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Affirmed tolling of no-fault interest for the fourteen years between the provider's discovery responses and its notice of trial, rejecting as unsupported and meritless the claim that the insurer's discovery default caused the delay.
- [New Generation Wellness Chiropractic, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 52046(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-generation-wellness-chiropractic-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2019-ny-slipop-52046u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-12-13 — Not tolled [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's further contention, apparently for a stay of interest between settlement and judgment, as unpreserved and in any event meritless, while affirming recalculation of interest at the compound rate.
- [G.N.S. Med. Supplies, Inc. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 52035(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/g-n-s-med-supplies-inc-v-country-wide-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op52035u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-12-13 — Not tolled [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's remaining contention, apparently seeking to stay interest between settlement and judgment, as not properly before the court and in any event meritless, while upholding compound-rate interest.
- [Healthline 1, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50919(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/healthline-1-inc-v-allstate-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-50919u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-06-07 — Not tolled [central]: Reversed the stay of no-fault interest between the settlement and entry of judgment and denied the insurer's request for it, for the reasons given in a companion decision rejecting such a toll.
- [Seaside Rehabilitation v Allstate Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50918(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/seaside-rehabilitation-v-allstate-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op-50918u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-06-07 — Not tolled [central]: Held that no-fault interest could not be stayed between the settlement and entry of judgment, because the insurer had to pay the settlement without a demand and did not show the provider prevented payment.
- [Berenblit v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 50505(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/berenblit-v-aetna-cas-sur-co-2019-ny-slip-op-50505u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2019-03-29 — Not tolled [central]: Vacated the toll of postjudgment interest between entry of judgment and service of notice of entry, because the prevailing provider need not demand payment and did not cause the insurer's delay in paying.
- [Craniofacial Pain Mgt. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 51825(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/craniofacial-pain-mgt-v-allstate-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op-51825u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-12-07 — Not tolled [central]: Held that postjudgment interest could not be tolled from entry of judgment until service of notice of entry, because such interest penalizes delayed payment and nothing the provider did prevented the insurer from paying.
- [Vitality Chiropractic, P.C. v Countrywide Ins. (2018 NY Slip Op 50849(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vitality-chiropractic-p-c-v-countrywide-ins-2018-ny-slip-op-50849u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-06-01 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Modified, for the reasons stated in a companion decision, the posttrial toll of prejudgment interest for the provider's delay in prosecution, so interest accrued from January 23, 2014 rather than December 18, 2014.
- [Vitality Chiropractic, P.C. v Countrywide Ins. (2018 NY Slip Op 50838(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vitality-chiropractic-p-c-v-countrywide-ins-2018-ny-slip-op-50838u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-06-01 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Held that under 65-3.9 (d) prejudgment interest was suspended for the provider's years of inaction after the action began, but resumed when it served a motion to compel discovery, not at the notice of trial a year later.
- [Mostun v Countrywide Ins. (2018 NY Slip Op 50839(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mostun-v-countrywide-ins-2018-ny-slip-op-50839u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-06-01 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Held, adopting the companion decision, that prejudgment interest was suspended for the provider's years of inaction but began to accrue again when it served a motion to compel discovery, not at the later notice of trial.
- [Mostun v Countrywide Ins. (2018 NY Slip Op 50840(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mostun-v-countrywide-ins-2018-ny-slip-op-50840u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-06-01 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Held, for the reasons of a companion decision, that the toll of prejudgment interest for the provider's delay in prosecuting the action was proper but interest must accrue from January 23, 2014 rather than December 18, 2014.
- [Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50157(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/eagle-surgical-supply-inc-v-country-wide-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op50157u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-02-02 — Not tolled [central]: Held interest properly ran from commencement despite years before trial, because the insurer did not show the reason for the delay or that the plaintiff had unreasonably delayed the action under 65-3.9 (d).
- [Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50158(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/eagle-surgical-supply-inc-v-country-wide-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op50158u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-02-02 — Not tolled [central]: Affirmed the award of prejudgment interest from January 29, 2006, rejecting the insurer's request to toll interest for the provider's delay in prosecuting the action, for the reasons stated in a decided-herewith companion appeal.
- [Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50159(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/eagle-surgical-supply-inc-v-country-wide-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op50159u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-02-02 — Not tolled [central]: Affirmed the award of prejudgment interest from commencement of the action, rejecting the insurer's request to toll interest for delay in prosecution, for the reasons stated in the decided-herewith companion appeal.
- [Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50160(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/eagle-surgical-supply-inc-v-country-wide-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op50160u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-02-02 — Not tolled [central]: Affirmed prejudgment interest from August 17, 2006, rejecting the insurer's request to toll interest for the provider's delay in prosecuting the action, for the reasons stated in the decided-herewith companion appeal.
- [Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 50118(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/delta-diagnostic-radiology-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2018-ny-slip-op50118u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2018-01-26 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Shortened the toll for unreasonable delay, holding interest accrued from commencement until the first day a motion to compel interrogatory responses could be made, since motions and discovery were active before then, while the later period remained excluded.
- [B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51091(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/b-z-chiropractic-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op-51091u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-08-18 — Not tolled [central]: Reversed a toll of postjudgment interest for the years of inactivity, because nothing the provider did prevented the insurer from paying and a prevailing party need not demand payment of a judgment.
- [Village Med. Supply, Inc. v American Country Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 50941(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/village-med-supply-inc-v-american-country-ins-co-2017-ny-slip-op50941u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2017-07-21 — Not tolled [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's challenge to interest accruing before the action was commenced, because it never proved it mailed denials, so no toll applied.
- [Kew Gardens Med & Rehab, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51240(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/kew-gardens-med-rehab-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2016-ny-slip-op51240u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2016-08-10 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Held statutory interest must run only from the date the provider served a motion to compel discovery, because the provider took no meaningful action for years after suing and should not receive a windfall of interest under 65-3.9 (d).
- [V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51760(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/v-s-med-servs-p-c-v-travelers-ins-co-2015-ny-slip-op51760u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2015-12-01 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Extended the stay of interest accrual to the notice of trial because the provider did nothing to prosecute the action for about three years after the dismissal was vacated, and should not get a windfall of interest under 65-3.9 (d).
- [Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC (2014 NY Slip Op 51861(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/optimal-well-being-chiropractic-p-c-v-mvaic-2014-ny-slip-op-51861u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014-12-19 — Tolled: no timely suit [central]: Held the interest award excessive because its accrual dates did not follow the 65-3.9 (c) toll as applied in LMK and East Acupuncture, and remitted for entry of a judgment recalculating interest and dependent attorney's fees.
- [Aminov v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 24066)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/aminov-v-country-wide-ins-co-2014-ny-slip-op-24066/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2014-03-05 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Upheld running interest only from the notice of trial because, the denial's mailing being proven, interest began at commencement and was suspended under 65-3.9 (d) for seven years of the provider's inaction, which the insurer had no duty to cure.
- [Parsons Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 52328(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/parsons-med-supply-inc-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2013-ny-slip-op52328u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2013-11-12 — Tolled: no timely suit [central]: Held that, because the provider did not sue within 30 days of the timely denials, interest under 65-3.9 (c) began only when the action was commenced, which under CCA 412 meant service, not filing, of the summons and complaint.
- [Corona Hgts. Med., P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 21130)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/corona-hgts-med-p-c-v-liberty-mut-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op-21130/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2011-04-05 — Not tolled [central]: Held interest was not tolled and ran from 30 days after each claim, reversing a recalculation from commencement, because the insurer never established proper mailing of its denials, so the claims were overdue and the 65-3.9 (c) toll never triggered.
- [Belt Parkway Imaging, P.C. v State Wide Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 52229(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/belt-parkway-imaging-p-c-v-state-wide-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op52229u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2010-12-20 — Not tolled [also decides]: Upheld interest accruing from 30 days after the claims were submitted, because the insurer failed to establish that it ever sent denial forms, so the toll for not suing within 30 days of a denial never applied.
- [Infinity Health Prods., Ltd. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 28271)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/infinity-health-prods-ltd-v-eveready-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-28271/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2008-07-10 — Not tolled [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's argument that interest accrued only from commencement of the action, holding the 65-3.9 (c) toll inapplicable where the insurer never timely paid or denied the claims because its verification requests were ineffective.
- [Brooklyn Chiropractic Assoc., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 27323)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/brooklyn-chiropractic-assoc-p-c-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-27323/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2007-07-13 — Tolled: no timely suit [central]: Held interest began 30 days after receipt of each claim but was tolled from the provider's receipt of the untimely denials until it commenced the action, because it did not sue within 30 days after the denials.
- [East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 27109)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/east-acupuncture-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-27109/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2007-01-03 — Tolled: no timely suit [central]: Held that 'applicant' in 65-3.9 (c) includes provider assignees, deferring to the Superintendent's interpretation, so interest on untimely denied claims stopped until the assignee sued and the interest calculation was remanded.

### Trial courts in the First Department

- [Devonshire Surgical Facility v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2011 NY Slip Op 50793(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/devonshire-surgical-facility-v-american-tr-ins-co-2011-ny-slip-op50793u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, 2011-03-14 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: 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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/canarsie-med-health-p-c-v-national-grange-mut-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op-28380/) — Supreme Court, New York County, 2008-09-17 — Tolled: no timely suit [central]: Upheld 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

- [Life Care Physical Therapy P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 50519(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/life-care-physical-therapy-p-c-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-50519u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2026-04-13 — Tolled: claimant's delay [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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/longevity-med-supply-inc-v-new-york-city-tr-auth-2025-ny-slip-op-52018u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2025-12-17 — Tolled: claimant's delay [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)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/john-t-mather-mem-hosp-v-american-tr-ins-co-2024-ny-slip-op-24009/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024-01-12 — Tolled: no timely suit [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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-trinity-pain-mgt-of-staten-is-pllc-2023-ny-slip-op-51337u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-12-08 — Tolled: no timely suit [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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-nexray-med-imaging-pc-2023-ny-slip-op50953u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-09-08 — Tolled: no timely suit [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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-rutland-med-pc-2023-ny-slip-op50814u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-08-04 — Tolled: no timely suit [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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-nexray-med-imaging-pc-2023-ny-slip-op50538u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-05-28 — Tolled: no timely suit [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))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-nexray-med-imaging-pc-2023-ny-slip-op50506u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-05-25 — Tolled: no timely suit [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.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v North Shore Family Chiropractic PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50208(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-north-shore-family-chiropractic-pc-2023-ny-slipop-50208u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-03-20 — Tolled: no timely suit [also decides]: Held that interest on the timely denied claims ran only from the date the arbitration request was received, because the provider did not request arbitration within 30 days after receiving the last denial, under 65-3.9 (c).
- [A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 50982(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/a-m-med-servs-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-ins-co-2022-ny-slip-op50982u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, 2022-10-06 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Granted the insurer's request under 65-3.9 (d) because the provider let the case sit inactive for years without filing a notice of trial, so interest would accrue only from that filing.
- [V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2021 NY Slip Op 50968(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/v-s-med-servs-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-ins-co-2021-ny-slip-op50968u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, 2021-10-08 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Granted the insurer's motion and fixed interest to accrue only from the filing of a notice of trial because the provider took no action for years after commencing the action, unreasonably delaying the proceeding.
- [MSB Physical Therapy, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. (2021 NY Slip Op 50750(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/msb-physical-therapy-p-c-v-nationwide-ins-2021-ny-slip-op-50750u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2021-07-13 — Tolled: no timely suit [also decides]: Held interest on the five recovered bills ran at 2% per month only from commencement of the action, because the provider did not sue within 30 days after those bills became overdue, applying 65-3.9 (c).
- [Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 20137)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/longevity-med-supply-inc-v-progressive-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op-20137/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2020-06-17 — Tolled: no timely suit [also decides]: Awarded 2% monthly interest on the conceded balance only from the commencement of the action because the provider did not sue within 30 days after receiving the insurer's denial under 65-3.9 (c).
- [New Chiropractic Care, P.C. v Nationwide Ins. Co. of N.Y. (2020 NY Slip Op 50652(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-chiropractic-care-p-c-v-nationwide-ins-co-of-n-y-2020-ny-slip-op50652u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2020-06-01 — Tolled: no timely suit [also decides]: Awarded 2% prejudgment interest on the two surviving bills only from the commencement of the action, because the provider did not sue within 30 days after those bills became overdue.
- [Castle Hill Med. PC v MVAIC (2014 NY Slip Op 50791(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/castle-hill-med-pc-v-mvaic-2014-ny-slip-op-50791u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2014-05-16 — Tolled: claimant's delay [also decides]: Held that, because the petitioner inordinately delayed entering the civil judgment for eight years after the order, interest would run only from the date the judgment is filed with the clerk under 65-3.9 (d).
- [North Queens Med. P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 51519(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/north-queens-med-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2013-ny-slip-op51519u/) — District Court of Nassau County, First District, 2013-09-13 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Granted the insurer's request for a retroactive toll under 65-3.9 (d) because the provider let the action sit for ten years without diligence, so interest would run only once the Surrogate authorized the case to proceed.
- [All Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 22307)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/all-boro-psychological-servs-p-c-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2012-ny-slip-op-22307/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2012-10-23 — Tolled: no timely suit [central]: Held that because the provider sued more than 30 days after receiving the denial, the 65-3.9 (c) toll applied, and that under CCA 412 interest began when service of the index-numbered summons was completed, not at filing.
- [Arzu v NYC Tr. Auth. (2012 NY Slip Op 22008)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/arzu-v-nyc-tr-auth-2012-ny-slip-op-22008/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2012-01-09 — Tolled: claimant's delay [central]: Held that the claimant's five years of inaction after providing discovery was unreasonable delay under 65-3.9(d), the insurer bearing no duty to move the case, and tolled interest from one year after discovery compliance.
- [Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51127(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vista-surgical-supplies-inc-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-51127u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2007-05-30 — Tolled: no timely suit [central]: Held interest on the untimely or improperly denied claim did not accrue until the summons was filed, because the 65-3.9 (c) toll applies to assignee providers who do not sue within 30 days after a denial.
- [Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 27072)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/elmont-open-mri-diagnostic-radiology-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-27072/) — District Court of Nassau County, First District, 2007-02-23 — Not tolled [central]: Held the 65-3.9 (c) toll did not apply because the insurer's timely denial was facially invalid, being on an unapproved form; interest on the overdue claim ran from 30 days after receipt, the toll reserved for proper, valid denials.
- [Alpha Chiropractic P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26498)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/alpha-chiropractic-p-c-v-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-26498/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, 2006-12-13 — Not tolled [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's argument that interest ran only from commencement of the action, because the insurer stipulated it issued no denials, so 65-3.9 (c) was never triggered and interest ran from 30 days after each claim.
- [Tsai Chao v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50794(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/tsai-chao-v-country-wide-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-50794u/) — District Court of Nassau County, 2006-05-03 — Tolled: no timely suit [central]: Held the 65-3.9 (c) toll applied to a provider assignee that sued more than four years after timely denials, because an assignee stands in its assignor's shoes; interest ran only from commencement of the action.
- [East Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2005 NY Slip Op 25242)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/east-acupuncture-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2005-ny-slip-op-25242/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, 2005-06-27 — Not tolled [central]: Held former 65.15 (h) (3) did not apply to a provider assignee that sued two years after the denials, because the regulation names only the applicant; interest ran from 30 days after the insurer received the claims.