Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (David Landfair of counsel), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Nathan Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered May 11, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had procured the insurance policy in question by making a material misrepresentation as to his place of residence.

For the reasons stated in Liliya Veksler, LCSW, P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (59 Misc 3d 145[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50741[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]), the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (David Landfair of counsel), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Nathan M. Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered May 11, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had procured the insurance policy in question by making a material misrepresentation as to his place of residence.

For the reasons stated in Liliya Veksler, LCSW, P.C. v Ameriprise Ins. Co. (59 Misc 3d 145[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50741[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]), the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Erika E.E. Treco of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Douglas Mace of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered April 22, 2016. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order 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 an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion, which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

In its motion, defendant established that initial and follow-up letters scheduling an EUO had been timely mailed; that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear on either date (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]); and that the claims had been timely denied on that ground (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s motion, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. De Martini & Yi, LLP (Bryan Visnius of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered April 4, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon plaintiff’s failure to provide requested verification within 120 days of the initial verification request (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [o]).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, defendant’s proof was sufficient to demonstrate prima facie that it had timely mailed initial and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]); that it had not received the requested verification; and that it had timely denied the claim on that ground. However, as plaintiff further argues, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see id.). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff provided the requested verification.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered April 14, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 are granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 on the ground that the amounts plaintiff sought to recover, for services rendered prior to April 1, 2013, were in excess of the workers’ compensation fee schedule.

For the reasons stated in Acupuncture Now, P.C., as Assignee of Carlos, Illingworth v GEICO Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-1377 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and the branches of defendant’s cross [*2]motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 are granted.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered November 5, 2015. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order 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 an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion, which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

In its motion, defendant established that initial and follow-up letters scheduling an EUO had been timely mailed; that plaintiff had failed to appear on either date (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]); and that the claims had been timely denied on that ground (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s motion, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered April 15, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 are granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 on the ground that the amounts plaintiff sought to recover, for services rendered prior to April 1, 2013, were in excess of the workers’ compensation fee schedule.

For the reasons stated in Acupuncture Now, P.C., as Assignee of Carlos, Illingworth v GEICO Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-1377 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and the branches of defendant’s cross [*2]motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 are granted.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

Robyn M. Brilliant, P.C. (Robyn M. Brilliant of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered March 30, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely denied the claim at issue based on plaintiff’s failure to submit the claim to defendant within 45 days of the date the services had been rendered. The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion but made, in effect, CPLR 3212 (g) findings that defendant’s denial of claim form had been timely and proper, and that the sole issue for trial was defendant’s defense that the claim had not been timely submitted.

Contrary to defendant’s sole contention on appeal, the affidavit of plaintiff’s owner was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the claim had been timely submitted to defendant. Consequently, defendant did not establish, as a matter of law, that plaintiff had failed to comply with the regulation requiring submission of claims within 45 days of the services rendered (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered April 15, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 are granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 on the ground that the amounts plaintiff sought to recover, for services rendered prior to April 1, 2013, were in excess of the workers’ compensation fee schedule.

The proof submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim forms at issue had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant [*2]also demonstrated that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 are granted.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.

Law Office of Lawrence R. Miles (Thomas Wolf of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered January 27, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

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 as denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment which sought to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

While defendant made a prima facie showing that it had not received the requested verification, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As a triable issue of fact exists as to whether this action is premature (see Compas Med., P.C. v. Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 152[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]), the Civil Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.