The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau & Associates (Arthur T. Kontaxis 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 granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

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 on the ground that the amounts plaintiff sought to recover, for services rendered after April 1, 2013, were in excess of the workers’ compensation fee schedule, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Since 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (g) (1) (ii), effective April 1, 2013 (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [g] [2]), provides that “no payment shall be due for . . . claimed medical services under any circumstances . . . for those claimed medical service fees that exceed the charges permissible pursuant to Insurance Law sections 5108 (a) and (b) and the regulations promulgated thereunder for services rendered by medical providers” (see also Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co., 58 Misc 3d 151[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50095[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]), plaintiff’s sole issue on appeal, regarding defendant’s denial of claim form, is without merit.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Jennifer Raheb of counsel), for appellant. Nightingale Law, P.C. (Michael S. Nightingale of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), dated March 16, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

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 on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

While plaintiff argues that defendant did not mail its IME scheduling letters to the correct address, defendant demonstrated that copies of the IME scheduling letters had been mailed to the attorney who represented plaintiff’s assignor with respect to the accident in question (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 22 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50294[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Furthermore, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Allison H. Farkas 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 January 27, 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification. By order entered January 27, 2016, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.

In support of its motion, defendant established that it had timely mailed its verification request and follow-up verification request (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that plaintiff’s action is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). However, in opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from plaintiff’s owner, which affidavit was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact 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 [*2]51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

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.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Laurie Dipreta, 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 12, 2016. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, defendant’s proof sufficiently established the proper mailing of the IME scheduling letters (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff 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 January 27, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

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 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath.

For the reasons stated in Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC, as Assignee of Cooper, Kadeem v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-435 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff 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 January 27, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

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 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting the EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate “as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider] . . . that the [provider] twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[]” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; see Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). As [*2]plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit, plaintiff has not provided any basis to disturb the Civil Court’s order.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (Mikhail Kopelevich of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Elke E. Mirabella of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered December 7, 2015. 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.

“A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the policy had it known the facts misrepresented. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must present documentation concerning its underwriting practices, such as underwriting manuals, bulletins, or rules pertaining to similar risks, that show that it would not have issued the same policy if the correct information had been disclosed in the application” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Fatmir, 89 AD3d 993, 994 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that it would not have issued the policy in question. Consequently, defendant did not [*2]demonstrate, prima facie, that the misrepresentation by plaintiff’s assignor was material.

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.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. The Law Office of Tobias & Kuhn (Marisa Villeda of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered December 17, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

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 and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. The court found that defendant had established that there was no coverage for no-fault benefits since defendant had demonstrated that the Workers’ Compensation Board had awarded workers’ compensation benefits to plaintiff’s assignor for injuries she had sustained in the accident which gave rise to the claims at issue.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, a lack of coverage defense may be raised without regard to any issue as to the propriety or timeliness of an insurer’s denial of claim form (see Zappone v Home Ins. Co., 55 NY2d 131, 135-136 [1982] [lack of coverage defense is not precluded]; see also Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]). The papers submitted by defendant in support of its motion, and by plaintiff in support of its cross motion, established that plaintiff had submitted claims for workers’ compensation benefits and that the Workers’ Compensation Board had awarded plaintiff’s assignor workers’ compensation benefits [*2]for injuries she had sustained in the accident at issue. As plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact, the order is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. The Law Office of Tobias & Kuhn (Marisa Villeda of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered December 17, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

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 and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. The court found that defendant had established that there was no coverage for no-fault benefits because defendant had demonstrated that the Workers’ Compensation Board had awarded workers’ compensation benefits to plaintiff’s assignor for injuries she had sustained in the accident which gave rise to the claims at issue.

For the reasons stated in Active Care Med. Supply Corp., as Assignee of Holland, Monique v Hartford Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-189 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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

Law Office of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt of counsel), for appellants. Law Office of Lawrence R. Miles (Thomas Wolf of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered November 6, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the insured vehicle had not been involved in the alleged accident on February 13, 2013, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment.

For the reasons stated in Jamaica Wellness Med., P.C., as Assignee of Nelson Shaquan v Hereford Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2015-2655 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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