The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. De Martini & Yi, LLP (Arthur J. DeMartini, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered June 9, 2014. 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’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal, defendant properly tolled its time to pay or deny the claim at issue through its initial and follow-up EUO scheduling letters (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; 65-3.6 [b]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Sharon A. Brennan, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered June 9, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action and, upon denying the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established proper mailing of the denial of the claim underlying that cause of action.

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 of lack of medical necessity. Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action and, upon denying the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established proper mailing of the denial of claim form underlying that cause of action.

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to establish that the denial of claim forms at issue had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

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

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

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered May 5, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims which had been denied based on the workers’ compensation fee schedule, and, upon denying the branches defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the remainder of the complaint, found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established the timely denials of the claims underlying that portion of 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, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims which had been denied based on the workers’ compensation fee schedule, and, upon denying the branches defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the remainder of the complaint, found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established the timely denials of the claims underlying that portion of the complaint.

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, defendant’s proof established proper mailing of the denial of claim forms at issue (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. [*2]Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Plaintiff’s further argument regarding defendant’s application of the workers’ compensation fee schedule lacks merit (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

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

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

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Douglas Mace, Esq.), for appellant. Epstein, Gialleonardo, Harms & McDonald (Yael Ryzowy, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered February 14, 2014. 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’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Moreover, plaintiff’s arguments on appeal as to defendant’s proof of mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and the denial of claim forms lack merit.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Janice P. Rosen, Esq.), for appellant. Christopher S. Cardillo, P.C., 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 September 15, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff’s untimely submission of the claim.

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, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order as denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff’s untimely submission of the claim at issue.

Contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, the Civil Court properly found that, on this record, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had timely submitted the claim at issue (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

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

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered March 19, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for $1,885.58 and granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing that portion of 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, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon a claim for $1,885.58 and granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing that portion of the complaint.

Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, the record establishes that defendant had not received timely notice of the accident (see 11 NYCRR § 65-1.1); that the claim at issue had been untimely submitted(see id.); and that defendant had timely denied the claim at issue on those grounds (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

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

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

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered June 27, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Andrea Masley, J.), entered June 27, 2013, modified by reinstating plaintiff’s claim for first-party no-fault benefits billed under CPT code 97039; as modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs.

Triable issues of fact are raised as to whether defendant-insurer properly denied plaintiff’s no-fault claim billed under CPT code 97039, thus precluding summary judgment dismissing this claim. Defendant’s submissions failed to establish prima facie its contention that the service is not reimbursable because it is a “physical medicine modality” and “outside the provider’s specialty” (see TC Acupuncture, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 131[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50978[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]; VS Care Acupuncture v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 141[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50164[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2015]; see also Forrest Chen Acupuncture Servs., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 54 AD3d 996 [2008]). The remaining claims at issue on appeal were properly dismissed as premature, since it is undisputed that plaintiff failed to respond to the duly issued verification requests (see St. Vincent Med. Care, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co., 80 AD3d 599, 600 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.