Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered May 22, 2013. 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 modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 as premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

In support of its cross 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 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). However, in opposition to the cross 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 Healing Health Prods., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 59 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered June 6, 2013. 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 defendant had established that there was no coverage for no-fault benefits since defendant had not issued an automobile insurance policy covering the underlying accident.

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 cross motion were sufficient to establish that the policy being sued upon was a workers’ compensation insurance policy which did not cover plaintiff’s claim to receive reimbursement of assigned first-party no-fault benefits. As plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of an applicable automobile insurance policy issued by defendant or to otherwise raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s cross motion, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered May 31, 2013. 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.

Since a claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification with respect thereto has been provided (see Westchester County Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 262 AD2d 553, 554 [1999]), a timely verification request tolls an insurer’s time to pay or deny the entire claim. Thus, any action to recover payment on that claim is premature when the provider has failed to respond to a request for verification (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492, 493 [2005]). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention on appeal, defendant’s moving papers were sufficient to establish defendant’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the second through tenth causes of action on the ground that defendant had not received the requested verification.

With respect to the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, the affidavit by defendant’s claims representative was sufficient to demonstrate prima facie that defendant had properly denied the claims for the services at issue in the first cause of action pursuant to the workers’ compensation fee schedule. In opposition to this branch of defendant’s motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Barry A. Schwartz, J.), entered May 10, 2013. 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 based on plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed (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 duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Since defendant had timely denied (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) the claim on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled EUOs, defendant demonstrated that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722). As plaintiff, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact, defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered April 30, 2013. 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that it had properly used the workers’ compensation fee schedule applicable to chiropractors who render the same services as acupuncturists to reimburse plaintiff for the acupuncture services plaintiff had rendered. The Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff argues on appeal, as it did in the Civil Court, that defendant failed to establish that its fee schedule reductions were proper. We disagree and find that defendant demonstrated that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services at issue 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]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered November 1, 2013. The order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

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 plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting plaintiff’s motion and denying defendant’s cross motion.

Defendant established that it had timely and properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) its EUO scheduling letters and its denial of claim forms, which denied the claims on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear at duly scheduled EUOs. Although the Civil Court found that defendant had established plaintiff’s nonappearances, the court held, as plaintiff argues, that defendant’s EUO scheduling letters were defective. However, under the circumstances presented, as plaintiff does not claim to have responded in any way to defendant’s EUO requests, plaintiff’s objections regarding the EUO scheduling letters will not be heard (see Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 128[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51798[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 35 Misc 3d 127[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50579[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). In light of the foregoing, defendant’s cross motion should have been granted. We pass on no other issue.

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

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez Salta, J.), entered August 1, 2012. 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, the affidavit of defendant’s employee was sufficient to establish the mailing of the EUO scheduling letters (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

Plaintiff also argues that the affirmation by the managing partner of defendant’s law firm, which had been retained to conduct the EUOs, did not establish that the assignor had failed to appear for the EUOs. This argument lacks merit, as that affirmation was not the proof submitted by defendant to establish the assignor’s failure to appear.

As plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any basis to disturb the Civil Court’s order, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered May 10, 2013. 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 10, 2013, 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 which she had performed and stated that her search had revealed that there was no Allstate Insurance Company policy covering the vehicle in question on the date of the accident. 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 Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s cross motion, 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 Elliot, JJ., concur.