Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Oleg Rybak of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lorna J. McAllister, J.), entered June 11, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied 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 granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

For the reasons stated in Acupuncture Now, P.C., as Assignee of Lozano, Cleotilde v Global Liberty Ins. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2018-962 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Buratti, Rothenberg & Burns (Rachel L. Hollander of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered March 27, 2018. 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, among others, that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies in question, and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court granted defendant’s motion and denied plaintiff’s cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the peer review report submitted by defendant sufficiently set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the peer reviewer’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies at issue. In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a doctor which failed to meaningfully refer to, let alone sufficiently rebut, the conclusions set forth in the peer review report (see Pan Chiropractic, [*2]P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51495[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Douglas Mace of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered May 17, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s cross motion seeking to hold the action in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

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 cross-moved to hold the action in abeyance pending an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board to determine the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s alleged eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits. By order entered May 17, 2018, insofar as is relevant, the Civil Court denied defendant’s cross motion. Defendant appeals.

The defense that the assignor is eligible for workers’ compensation benefits is subject to preclusion (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 [2009]). As defendant failed to demonstrate that it had timely denied plaintiff’s claims on the ground that the [*2]assignor was injured in the course of his employment (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [a]; Presbyterian Hosp. in City of NY v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]), defendant’s cross motion was properly denied.

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

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

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Devon Riley Christian of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rosemarie Montalbano, J.), entered May 7, 2018. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to compel discovery.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied and plaintiff’s cross motion to compel discovery 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 of lack of medical necessity. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that defendant had failed to respond to discovery demands and that defendant’s responses were necessary to oppose defendant’s motion (see CPLR 3212 [f]). Plaintiff also cross-moved to compel defendant to provide the requested discovery (see CPLR 3124). The Civil Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion seeking to compel discovery.

In opposition to defendant’s motion, and in support of its cross motion to compel [*2]discovery, plaintiff demonstrated that it had requested from defendant, but had not received in time to oppose defendant’s motion (see CPLR 3212 [f]), the medical records relied upon by defendant’s peer reviewer. In light of the foregoing, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see IDF Diagnostic Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 48 Misc 3d 138[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51213[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; see also Alrof, Inc. v Progressive Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 29 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

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

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

Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Gregory W. Broido of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered March 27, 2018. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

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

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 had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to provide requested verification within 120 days of the initial verification request (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [o]), and granting plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Defendant’s proof was sufficient to demonstrate prima facie that it had timely mailed initial and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]); that it had not received the requested verification; and that it had timely denied the claim on that ground. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raised a [*2]triable issue of fact.

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

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

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered February 21, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied 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 granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

For the reasons stated in Acupuncture Now, P.C., as Assignee of Lozano, Cleotilde v Global Liberty Ins. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2018-962 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered February 22, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied 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 granted.

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 of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The proof submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim forms at issue had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also 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]). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

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

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