The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff and Cheryl Korman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rosemarie Montalbano, J.), entered August 29, 2019. 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 which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s only contention with respect to defendant’s motion for summary judgment is that the affirmation submitted by defendant’s attorney, who was present in his office to conduct plaintiff’s EUOs on the scheduled dates, was insufficient to establish that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs because it does not “conclusively prove that [counsel] was present at the scheduled start times of the EUOs.” We reject that argument. Counsel, a partner in the law firm representing defendant in this action, stated in his affirmation that the EUOs were scheduled to take place at 10:00 a.m. in his firm’s offices on December 14, 2017 and January 3, 2018; that he was “present in the office” on those days; that no one affiliated with plaintiff appeared for either scheduled EUO; and that if someone had appeared, he “would have conducted the EUO of the Plaintiff or assigned one of the other attorneys authorized to conduct EUOs to conduct the EUO of the Plaintiff.” Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, this affirmation was sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that plaintiff failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v Geico Ins. Co., 57 Misc 3d 150[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51518[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th [*2]& 13th Jud Dists 2017]), and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., WESTON and BUGGS, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered August 9, 2019. 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 which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

For the reasons stated in MSB Physical Therapy, P.C., as Assignee of Reid, Shamel W. v Nationwide Ins. (— Misc 3d —, 2022 NY Slip Op — [appeal No. 2019-1349 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered August 9, 2019. 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 which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

For the reasons stated in MSB Physical Therapy, P.C., as Assignee of Reid, Shamel W. v Nationwide Ins. (— Misc 3d —, 2022 NY Slip Op — [appeal No. 2019-1349 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Callinan & Smith LLP (Michael A. Callinan of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rosemarie Montalbano, J.), entered August 27, 2019. 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 granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

For the reasons stated in PFJ Med. Care, P.C., as Assignee of Simmond, Tylon B. v Nationwide Ins. (— Misc 3d —, 2022 NY Slip Op — [appeal No. 2020-74 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered September 26, 2019. 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 denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole contention on appeal with respect to defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the affirmations submitted by defendant’s counsel, as well as the transcripts of the examinations under oath (EUOs), were sufficient to establish that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Pavlova v Nationwide Ins., 70 Misc 3d 144[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50213[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Robyn M. Brilliant (Robyn M. Brilliant of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered September 27, 2019. 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 granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole contention on appeal with respect to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, defendant did not need to demonstrate, as part of its prima facie case, that the first independent medical examination scheduling letter had been sent to plaintiff’s assignor within 15 days of defendant’s receipt of either the NF-2 or a claim received from another provider (see City Anesthesia Healthcare, P.C. v Erie Ins. Co. of NY, 70 Misc 3d 141[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50135[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; Appendix 13; see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Surgicore of Jersey City, LLC, 195 AD3d 454 [2021]; Excel Prods., Inc. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 71 Misc 3d 136[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50435[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Shaaker Bhuiyan of counsel), for appellant. Baker Sanders, LLC, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered September 27, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the fifth and ninth causes of action as sought to recover in excess of the amounts permitted by the workers’ compensation fee schedule.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

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 services rendered were not medically necessary. Defendant also sought summary judgment dismissing so much of the fifth and ninth causes of action as sought to recover in excess of the amounts permitted by the workers’ compensation fee schedule. Plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion. By order entered January 12, 2019, the Civil Court denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss so much of the fifth and ninth causes of action as sought to recover in excess of the amounts permitted by the workers’ compensation fee schedule but granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the services were not medically necessary.

As the order appealed from held that defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing all of the claims on the ground that all of the services were not medically necessary, defendant is not aggrieved by so much of the order as denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the fifth and ninth causes of action as sought to recover in excess of the amounts permitted by the workers’ compensation fee schedule (see CPLR 5511; Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of NY, 60 NY2d 539, 545 [1983]; Botie [*2]v Town of Babylon, 71 Misc 3d 1298[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50234[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2021]).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Hollander Legal Group, P.C. (Allan S. Hollander 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 June 28, 2019. 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 which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole appellate contention with respect to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, defendant did not need to demonstrate, as part of its prima facie case, that the first examination under oath scheduling letter had been sent to plaintiff’s assignor within 15 days of defendant’s receipt of either the NF-2 or a claim received from another provider (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; Excel Prods., Inc. v Ameriprise Auto & Home, 71 Misc 3d 136[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50435[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]; see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Surgicore of Jersey City, LLC, 195 AD3d 454 [2021]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., TOUSSAINT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.