New Decisions

New York no-fault decisions as they come down, month by month, with a short summary of each. 5,816 decisions in all; new ones are added every month. Most recent decision: October 29, 2026.

Decisions per month, last two years12 months Appellate DivisionAppellate TermTrial courtsCourt of Appeals
  1. 3
  2. 4
  3. 6
  4. 11
  5. 13
  6. 6
  7. 16
  8. 6
  9. 8
  10. 6
  11. 5
  12. 7
  13. 11
  14. 19
  15. 20
  16. 29
  17. 19
  18. 11
  19. 15
  20. 13
  21. 11
  22. 6
  23. 11
  24. 7

October 2026

7 decisions · 5 Appellate Division · 1 Appellate Term · 1 trial court

  • De novo actions. The Second Department held that dismissing an insurer's Insurance Law § 5106 (c) action for discovery noncompliance revived the dormant master arbitration award for confirmation (Bliss Acupuncture).
  • Article 75 fees. The First Department held that denying vacatur required confirmation (CPLR 7511 (e)) and the provider was entitled to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) fees (Midland Pharm.); the Second Department remitted a fee award that stated no basis (Pfeffer).
  • SUM trigger. The Second Department found SUM coverage not triggered where the tortfeasor's primary and umbrella limits exceeded the SUM policy's liability limits (Erie v Rodriguez).
  • Late MVAIC claims. Citing Raffellini, the Appellate Term, First Department, held the trial court could not disregard claim time frames on policy grounds and found a four-month delay unjustified (Medical Imaging of Bronx).

Our summary of the month’s decisions, not the courts’ words.

Issues this month: Interest and attorney fees 3 SUM / uninsured motorist 2 Timeliness and preclusion 2 CPLR article 75 (arbitration awards) 2 MVAIC 1 Trial and evidence 1

Appellate Division, First Department Oct 29, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 06393

Matter of Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v Vargas

The claimant's evidence raised factual issues about physical contact and compliance with the policy's 24-hour reporting requirement. The insurer obtained a permanent stay of supplemental uninsured motorist arbitration arising from an alleged hit-and-run accident. Physical contact is a condition precedent to arbitration, and the insured bears the burden of proving it. The EMS report contained conflicting accounts, while the claimant affirmed that an unknown vehicle struck the motorcycle. The report also placed police at the scene, and the claimant stated that identifying information was provided to them. Applying a liberal interpretation of the reporting requirement, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed, vacated the permanent stay and remanded for a hearing on both issues, with arbitration stayed pending that hearing.

Appellate Division, First Department Oct 22, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 06193 Provider prevailed

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Midland Pharm. Yonkers Corp.

A master arbitration award must be affirmatively confirmed when a petition to vacate it is denied under CPLR 7511 (e). The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the insurer's CPLR article 75 petition but also denied the provider's cross-petition for confirmation and attorney fees. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order to confirm the award and remanded to fix reasonable fees under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j). The trial court must review the provider's evidence and state the evidentiary basis for the fee award. If the evidence is insufficient, the court may determine a reasonable fee in its discretion. It should also consider fees incurred in prosecuting the appeal under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4).

Appellate Division, Second Department Oct 21, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 06115 Insurer prevailed

Matter of Erie Ins. Co. v Rodriguez

SUM coverage was not triggered because the tortfeasor's combined bodily injury liability limits exceeded the claimant's policy liability limits. The tortfeasor had primary automobile and umbrella coverage, while the claimant sought SUM benefits under the policy covering the vehicle the claimant operated. Under Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2) (A), the comparison includes the liability limits of all bodily injury insurance policies covering the tortfeasor's vehicle. Following Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Rivera, SUM coverage is triggered only when those limits are less than the third-party liability limits of the policy under which benefits are sought. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, insofar as appealed from, adhering on reargument to a permanent stay of arbitration; the claimant's remaining contention was not reached.

Appellate Division, Second Department Oct 21, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 06113 Provider prevailed

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Pfeffer

The provider's attorney fee award was reversed because neither the court nor the record supplied a basis for the amount awarded. After the insurer's CPLR article 75 petition to vacate a master arbitration award was denied and the provider's cross-petition granted, the provider sought $4,300 in fees but received $1,000. Under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), recoverable fees include representation in award confirmation or vacatur proceedings. Counsel must establish reasonable hours and prevailing rates, although the court may consider its familiarity with the litigation. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment's fee award and remitted for a new determination stating its evidentiary basis; the remaining contentions were not reached.

Appellate Division, Second Department Oct 21, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 06081 Provider prevailed

American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bliss Acupuncture, P.C.

A master arbitration award revives when an insurer's de novo action is dismissed for failure to comply with discovery demands. The insurer brought a de novo action under Insurance Law § 5106 (c) after a master arbitrator affirmed an award for the provider. The complaint was stricken for discovery noncompliance. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and granted the provider's motion to confirm the award and recover attorney fees. The de novo action had placed the award in a dormant state; dismissal revived it and made it binding. Under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), fees covered the de novo action, confirmation request and appeal. The matter was remitted to determine reasonable fees.

Appellate Term, First Department Oct 1, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 26160 Insurer prevailed

Medical Imaging of Bronx, P.C., Inc. v MVAIC

The provider failed to justify the four-month delay between another insurer's denials and submission of its claims to MVAIC. The parties stipulated that MVAIC timely denied the claims under the 45-day rule and limited trial to reasonable justification under 11 NYCRR 65-3.3 (e). The provider's witness could not recall or document when the referring physician was contacted about other coverage. Cover letters describing prior submission to another insurer did not explain the subsequent delay, and the provider did not respond to MVAIC's invitation to supply justification. General public policy considerations could not displace the filing requirements. The Appellate Term, First Department, reversed the judgment after nonjury trial and directed judgment dismissing the complaint.

Trial court, Second Department Oct 26, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 51806(U) Insurer prevailed

Burke 2 Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. PIP/BI Claims

The provider failed to show that it supplied requested verification or justified noncompliance within 120 days. The Civil Court, Kings County, granted the insurer summary judgment under 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (o) and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The provider's mailing affidavit was qualified, lacked supporting documents and identified an address different from the verification letters. The court upheld requests investigating licensing eligibility under 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) and found Mayzenberg inapplicable during that investigation because the denial rested on verification noncompliance. An amended cross motion served 18 months after the insurer's opposition and reply was not considered and was alternatively found insufficient. The provider's original cross motion and motion to dismiss affirmative defenses were denied as moot.

September 2026

11 decisions · 2 Appellate Division · 5 Appellate Term · 4 trial courts

  • Arbitration review. The Second Department repeated that a master arbitrator's mere errors of law are no CPLR 7511 ground for vacatur (Nostrand Drugs).
  • Default vacatur. The Appellate Term, Second Department, held an insurer's bare denial that process served on its registered agent reached it no reasonable excuse (Midwood Metro. Med.).
  • EUO mailing. The Appellate Term, First Department, accepted as proof of EUO mailing counsel's affidavit of office practice, sworn on personal knowledge to have been followed (RVA Leasing).
  • Settlement judgments. Applying Berenblit, the Appellate Term, Second Department, held that an insurer moving to vacate a CPLR 5003-a (e) judgment must first show nonreceipt of a release or stipulation (Health Value Med.).
  • Verification. Civil Court, Kings County, held Mayzenberg inapplicable to investigatory verification requests on licensing eligibility (Burke 2 Physical Therapy).

Our summary of the month’s decisions, not the courts’ words.

Issues this month: Defaults and vacatur 3 EUO no-show 3 Timeliness and preclusion 2 Jurisdiction and service 2 CPLR article 75 (arbitration awards) 1 Verification requests 1

Appellate Division, Second Department Sep 23, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 05400 Insurer prevailed

Matter of Nostrand Drugs Rx, Inc. v Church Mut. Ins. Co.

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

Matter of Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v Villanueva

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

RVA Leasing Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

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

RVA Leasing Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

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).

Appellate Term, Second Department Sep 18, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 51594(U) Provider prevailed

Health Value Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.

The insurer failed to show nonreceipt of settlement documents needed to support vacatur of the provider's judgment entered after a settlement default. The provider obtained judgment under CPLR 5003-a (e) after a default under a settlement. The Civil Court, Queens County, vacated the judgment because the provider had not proved tender of a duly executed release and stipulation of discontinuance under CPLR 5003-a (a). The insurer, however, bore the initial burden on its motion of demonstrating nonreceipt and failed to meet it. The provider therefore did not need to establish tender in opposition. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and denied the branch of the insurer's motion seeking vacatur.

Appellate Term, Second Department Sep 18, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 51589(U) Provider prevailed

Midwood Metro. Med., P.C. v Permanent Gen. Assur. Corp.

The insurer failed to establish a reasonable excuse for default based on nonreceipt of process served on its registered agent. The process server's affidavit established proper service under CPLR 311 (a) (1). The insurer's litigation representative reported finding no summons and complaint in its files or databases, but no affidavit from a person with personal knowledge contradicted service, disputed the agent's authority or explained why such an affidavit could not be provided. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed and denied vacatur under CPLR 5015 (a) (1), without reaching whether a potentially meritorious defense existed. Relief under CPLR 317 was also unavailable because the insurer's agent had been personally served, as contemplated by CPLR 317 and 318.

Appellate Term, Second Department Sep 18, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 51588(U) Insurer prevailed

Grand Plus Supply, Inc. v GEICO Indem. Co.

The insurer's affidavits established timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim form. The provider's sole appellate contention challenged the sufficiency of affidavits from the insurer's claims supervisor and mail facility general manager. Those affidavits supplied prima facie proof of mailing, and the provider failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the order granting the insurer summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on the provider's failure to appear for duly scheduled EUOs.

Trial court, Second Department Sep 24, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 26164 Insurer prevailed

Burke 2 Physical Therapy, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. PIP/BI Claims

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 23, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 51811(U) Insurer prevailed

Dakiroks Prods., Corp v United Auto. Ins. Co.

Service under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 253 does not establish personal jurisdiction over a no-fault insurer. The provider's affidavit invoking that statute was facially insufficient and carried no presumption of proper service. The provider then attempted service more than 120 days after commencement without obtaining leave under CPLR 306-b. The Civil Court, Kings County, granted the insurer's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, denied the provider's cross motion, including its request for a service extension, as moot and dismissed without prejudice. The court also stated that counsel's repeated misrepresentation of the statute would warrant denial of discretionary equitable relief, including an extension for good cause or in the interest of justice.

Trial court, Second Department Sep 16, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 51600(U) Insurer prevailed

Neighborhood Med. Health Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. PIP/BI Claims

The provider's claim was barred by a declaratory judgment because corroborating identifiers established the same claim and assignor. The prior judgment denied payment for listed bills based on the provider's failure to appear for EUOs. The provider disputed whether the listed initials identified its assignor and challenged the listed bill amount. The Civil Court, Kings County, found the initials a permissible abbreviation of the assignor's Spanish name and relied on the consistent claim number, EUO scheduling dates, denial dates and bill amount. The listed amount matched the sum of the provider's charges for each procedure. Applying res judicata and collateral estoppel, the court granted the insurer summary judgment, denied the provider's cross motion as moot and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Trial court, Second Department Sep 3, 2026 2026 NY Slip Op 51460(U) Provider prevailed

NR Motion PT, P.C. v Allstate Ins.

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.

All months

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecTotal
2026 20 29 19 11 15 13 11 6 11 7 142
2025 6 11 13 6 16 6 8 6 5 7 11 19 114
2024 13 7 9 2 3 8 3 3 5 2 3 4 62
2023 2 9 12 5 7 8 6 2 8 5 2 7 73
2022 7 6 7 18 6 54 17 25 20 6 12 38 216
2021 2 16 6 19 28 15 25 6 8 10 8 23 166
2020 13 9 7 6 14 16 9 28 5 18 53 10 188
2019 13 9 57 28 60 14 34 48 4 76 35 59 437
2018 12 22 6 9 39 66 13 3 2 5 99 16 292
2017 16 16 17 30 15 12 40 33 68 28 35 154 464
2016 7 16 59 16 14 66 14 8 69 58 36 18 381
2015 4 14 44 16 44 13 26 30 27 15 54 23 310
2014 8 24 36 25 25 5 15 30 5 9 4 63 249
2013 16 33 24 14 33 15 20 20 5 34 32 24 270
2012 24 21 21 44 29 40 24 70 21 19 14 30 357
2011 22 11 21 23 18 19 25 16 11 51 19 62 298
2010 25 13 34 25 15 18 28 13 3 32 31 29 266
2009 19 18 22 29 22 38 44 5 4 14 11 22 248
2008 10 23 21 26 18 12 40 12 38 24 13 22 259
2007 25 43 57 23 25 18 16 20 23 20 20 16 306
2006 11 26 27 15 30 30 45 13 12 19 23 32 283
2005 10 26 39 31 13 19 22 13 10 19 11 19 232
2004 6 10 19 15 14 19 13 8 18 14 15 29 180
2003 1 4 4 14 23

Headnotes, outcome labels and monthly summaries are our own summaries, not the courts’ words; the decision itself is the authority. Months follow the date a decision was handed down; new decisions are added monthly, so a recent month can still grow.