Bay LS Med. Supplies, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50319(U) http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_50319.htm. This case again re-confirms demands/requests for EUO’s must be timely objected to at the verification stage. The Court said:
Defendant established that it had timely and properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) its EUO scheduling letters and its denial of claim forms, which denied the claims on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear at duly scheduled EUOs. Although the Civil Court found that defendant had established plaintiff’s nonappearances, the court held, as plaintiff argues, that defendant’s EUO scheduling letters were defective. However, under the circumstances presented, as plaintiff does not claim to have responded in any way to defendant’s EUO requests, plaintiff’s objections regarding the EUO scheduling letters will not be heard (see Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 128[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51798[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 35 Misc 3d 127[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50579[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). In light of the foregoing, defendant’s cross motion should have been granted. We pass on no other issue.