Gullo & Associates, LLP ( Natalie Socorro, Esq.), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC ( Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered April 11, 2014. 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 denying defendant’s motion which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).

In support of its motion, defendant established that, before receiving the claims at issue, it had mailed letters scheduling an initial and follow-up IME to plaintiff’s assignor (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also established that the assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Thus, defendant demonstrated that plaintiff had failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (id. at 722). As defendant’s moving papers established that defendant had timely denied (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) the claims on that ground, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s motion, defendant was 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 SOLOMON, JJ., concur.

Nightingale Law, P.C. (Michael S. Nightingale, Esq.), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered August 4, 2014. 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 denying defendant’s motion which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).

In support of its motion, defendant established that, before receiving the claims at issue, it had mailed letters scheduling an initial and follow-up IME to the assignor (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also established that the assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Defendant further demonstrated that, upon receipt of the claims, it had timely denied the claims at issue based upon the assignor’s failure to appear for IMEs (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123). An assignor’s appearance at an IME “is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722).

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

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

Law Offices of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Miriam Granov, Esq.), for appellant. The Odierno Law Firm, P.C. (Paul A. Bargellini, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered June 26, 2014. 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 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 moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is premature due to plaintiff’s failure to provide requested verification. The Civil Court denied defendant’s motion but, in effect, limited the issues for trial, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), to whether plaintiff properly responded to defendant’s verification requests. As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion.

Defendant’s moving papers demonstrated, prima facie, that it had not received the requested verification. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff did not show that the requested verification had been provided to defendant prior to the commencement of the action. In view of the foregoing, and as plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is premature is granted.

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

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (Galina Feldsherova, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Nancy Linden, 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 May 14, 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, alleging that the claims at issue had been timely and properly denied on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear at duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). Plaintiff opposed the motion. By order entered May 14, 2014, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.

In support of its motion, defendant failed to establish that the initial and follow-up EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As a result, defendant failed to demonstrate that the EUOs had been properly scheduled and, thus, that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear at duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006]). Consequently, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, 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. Miller, Leiby & Associates, P.C. (Stacia Ury, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered April 24, 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, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely and properly denied the claim at issue based upon the assignor’s failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations. The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal with respect to defendant’s cross motion, defendant’s submissions were sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim forms had been timely and properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Law Offices of Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C. (Marina Josovich, Esq.), for appellant. The Law Office of Printz & Goldstein (Megan C. Dimiceli-Glaser, Esq.), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered May 1, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s cross 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, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The proof submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint did not establish as a matter of law its proffered defense that plaintiff’s assignor’s injuries did not arise from a covered incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195 [1997]). Consequently, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment should have been denied (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; see also A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 139[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52383[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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

Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. ( Janice P. Rosen, Esq.), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Irena Golodkeyer, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered April 11, 2014. 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 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by the president of Media Referral, Inc., which had been retained by defendant to schedule independent medical examinations (IMEs), which affidavit sufficiently established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also submitted an affidavit from the medical provider who was to perform the IMEs, which sufficiently established that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for those duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In addition, an affidavit executed by defendant’s claims examiner demonstrated that the denial of claim form, which denied the claim based on plaintiff’s assignor’s nonappearance at the IMEs, had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123). Since defendant demonstrated that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722) and that defendant had timely denied (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) the claim on that ground, the Civil Court should have granted defendant’s motion [*2]for summary judgment.

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

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