The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Rubin & Nazarian (Lawrence R. Miles, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered May 20, 2014. 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 moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant did not provide insurance coverage for the vehicle in question on the date of the accident at issue. By order entered May 20, 2014, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Compas Med., P.C., as Assignee of Pierre, Eddy v Hereford Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2014-1319 Q C], decided herewith), 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 Rubin & Nazarian (Lawrence R. Miles, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered May 20, 2014. 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 moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant did not provide insurance coverage for the vehicle in question on the date of the accident at issue. By order entered May 20, 2014, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

In support of its cross motion and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by its employee who described the details of a record search she had performed and stated that her search had revealed that there was no relevant Hereford Insurance Company policy in effect on the date of the accident in question. We find that defendant’s affidavit was sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that plaintiff’s claim did not arise out of a covered incident (see [*2]Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Civil Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

The Law Office of Gregory A. Goodman, P.C. (Gregory A. Goodman, Esq.), for appellant. Short & Billy, P.C. (Skip Short, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated January 26, 2016. The order, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator’s award dated July 17, 2015 in which GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator’s award, denied the petition and granted the cross petition.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator’s award, dated July 17, 2015 which upheld the award of an arbitrator, rendered pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (b), denying petitioner’s claims to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator’s award. The District Court denied the petition and granted the cross petition.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the determination of the master arbitrator had a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to settled law (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214 [1996]; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207 [1981]; Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 AD2d 442 [1980]). Consequently, the District Court properly denied the petition to vacate the master [*2]arbitrator’s award and granted the cross petition to confirm the award.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

We note that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment, not an order (see CPLR 411).

MARANO, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.

The Law Office of Gregory A. Goodman, P.C. (Gregory A. Goodman, Esq.), for appellant. Short & Billy, P.C. (Skip Short, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated January 26, 2016. The order, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator’s award dated July 17, 2015 in which GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator’s award, denied the petition and granted the cross petition.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator’s award, dated July 17, 2015 which upheld the award of an arbitrator, rendered pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (b), denying petitioner’s claims to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator’s award. The District Court denied the petition and granted the cross petition.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the determination of the master arbitrator had a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to settled law (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214 [1996]; Matter of Petrofsky [*2][Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207 [1981]; Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 AD2d 442 [1980]). Consequently, the District Court properly denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award and granted the cross petition to confirm the award.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

We note that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment, not an order (see CPLR 411).

MARANO, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.

The Law Office of Gregory A. Goodman, P.C. (Gregory A. Goodman, Esq.), for appellant. Short & Billy, P.C. (Skip Short, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated January 26, 2016. The order, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator’s award dated July 17, 2015 in which GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator’s award, denied the petition and granted the cross petition.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator’s award, dated July 17, 2015 which upheld the award of an arbitrator, rendered pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (b), denying petitioner’s claims to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator’s award. The District Court denied the petition and granted the cross petition.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the determination of the master arbitrator had a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to settled law (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214 [1996]; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207 [1981]; Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 AD2d 442 [1980]). Consequently, the District Court properly denied the petition to vacate the master [*2]arbitrator’s award and granted the cross petition to confirm the award.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

We note that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment, not an order (see CPLR 411).

MARANO, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.

The Law Office of Gregory A. Goodman, P.C. (Gregory A. Goodman, Esq.), for appellant. Short & Billy, P.C. (Skip Short, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated January 26, 2016. The order, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator’s award dated July 17, 2015 in which GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator’s award, denied the petition and granted the cross petition.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator’s award, dated July 17, 2015 which upheld the award of an arbitrator, rendered pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (b), denying petitioner’s claims to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator’s award. The District Court denied the petition and granted the cross petition.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the determination of the master arbitrator had a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to settled law (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214 [1996]; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207 [1981]; Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 AD2d 442 [*2][1980]). Consequently, the District Court properly denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award and granted the cross petition to confirm the award.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

We note that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment, not an order (see CPLR 411).

MARANO, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Theresa Carrubba, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered July 22, 2014. 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 on the ground that the action is premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

For the reasons stated in Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of Nathalia Brown v American Tr. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ____, 2017 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2014-1538 Q C], decided herewith), the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Theresa Carrubba, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered July 22, 2014. 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 on the ground that the action is premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

For the reasons stated in Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of Nathalia Brown v American Tr. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ____, 2017 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2014-1538 Q C], decided herewith), the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Theresa Carrubba, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered July 18, 2014. 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 on the ground that the action is premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

For the reasons stated in Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of Nathalia Brown v American Tr. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ____, 2017 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2014-1538 Q C], decided herewith), the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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 July 21, 2014. 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 on the ground that the action is premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

For the reasons stated in Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of Nathalia Brown v American Tr. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ____, 2017 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2014-1538 Q C], decided herewith), the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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