Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant. Petre and Zabokritsky, 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 June 22, 2018. The order denied defendant’s motion to sever the first cause of action seeking to recover upon a claim for services rendered to Shavkat Djalilov from the remaining cause of action.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion to sever the first cause of action from the remaining cause of action is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover first-party no-fault benefits assigned to it by two assignors, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 603 to sever the first cause of action seeking to recover upon a claim for services rendered to Shavkat Djalilov from the remaining causes of action.

The complaint alleges that the claims arose out of two separate accidents which occurred on two different dates. A review of the answer, denial of claim forms, and explanations of review pertaining to the claims at issue, reflects that the facts relating to each claim are likely to raise few, if any, common issues of fact (see Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 185 [2004]). As a result, defendant’s motion to sever the first cause of action from the remaining cause of action should have been granted (see Maria Oca, M.D., P.C. v MVAIC, 35 Misc 3d 134[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50758[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion to sever the first cause of action from the remaining causes of action is granted.

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

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant. Petre and Zabokritsky, 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 June 22, 2018. The order denied defendant’s motion to sever the first cause of action seeking to recover upon a claim for services rendered to Juan Beato from the remaining causes of action.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion to sever the first cause of action from the remaining causes of action is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover first-party no-fault benefits assigned to it by three assignors, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 603 to sever the first cause of action seeking to recover upon a claim for services rendered to Juan Beato from the remaining causes of action.

The complaint alleges that the claims arose out of three separate accidents which occurred on three different dates. A review of the answer, denial of claim forms, and explanations of review pertaining to the claims at issue, reflects that facts relating to each claim are likely to raise few, if any, common issues of fact (see Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 185 [2004]). As a result, defendant’s motion to sever the first cause of action from the remaining causes of action should have been granted (see Maria Oca, M.D., P.C. v MVAIC, 35 Misc 3d 134[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50758[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud [*2]Dists 2012]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion to sever the first cause of action from the remaining causes of action is granted.

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

Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice 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 (Rosemarie Montalbano, J.), entered May 7, 2018. The order denied defendant’s motion to sever the claim of each assignor into separate actions.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion to sever the claim of each assignor into separate actions is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover first-party no-fault benefits assigned to it by four assignors, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 603 to sever the causes of action into four separate actions.

The complaint alleges that the claims arose out of four separate accidents which occurred on four different dates. The facts relating to each claim are therefore likely to raise few, if any, common issues of fact (see Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 185 [2004]). As a result, defendant’s motion to sever the causes of action should have been granted (see Maria Oca, M.D., P.C. v MVAIC, 35 Misc 3d 134[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50758[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion to sever the claim of each assignor into separate actions is granted.

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. (Jung Pryjma of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lorna J. McAllister, J.), entered April 26, 2018. The order granted plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and denied defendant’s cross motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations.

For the reasons stated in Valdan Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Maria Marte v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2018-1352 K C], decided herewith), the order is reversed, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is denied as moot.

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

Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Daniel J. Tucker, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered December 12, 2017. 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 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 independent medical examinations (IMEs), and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole contention, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to establish the proper mailing of the IME scheduling letters (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 SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

Law Office of Damin J. Toell, P.C. (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellants. Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered November 16, 2017. The order granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion seeking discovery pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion seeking discovery pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d).

Plaintiffs’ sole argument on appeal is that the Civil Court should have denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and ordered jurisdictional discovery, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d), because plaintiffs could not properly oppose defendant’s motion without such discovery. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the conclusory affirmation by plaintiffs’ counsel and the exhibits annexed to plaintiffs’ cross motion, which included a transcript of the vice president of claims for American Independent Companies, Inc., the parent company of, among others, defendant, did not constitute the “tangible evidence” (Mandel v Busch Entertainment Corp., 215 AD2d 455, 455 [1995]) necessary to substantiate plaintiffs’ allegation that jurisdiction could exist, thereby demonstrating that plaintiffs’ assertion of the existence of a jurisdictional predicate was not [*2]“frivolous” (Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]). Thus, plaintiffs did not make a “sufficient start” (id.) by showing that essential jurisdictional facts might exist to warrant discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction over defendant.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Karen L. Lawrence (Cheryl Scher 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 September 29, 2017. 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 modified by providing that defendant’s 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 granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff correctly contends that defendant’s papers failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As a result, defendant did not demonstrate that it is not precluded from asserting its proffered defenses. Consequently, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

However, contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, plaintiff failed to establish that the claims at issue had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide [*2]Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued timely denials of claim that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). As a result, plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

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

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

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Marina Josovich, P.C. (Marina Josovich 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 May 10, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The notice of appeal from the order is deemed a notice of appeal from a judgment of that court entered December 12, 2017 awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $1,611.92 (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, so much of the order entered May 10, 2017 as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is vacated and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. By order entered May 10, 2017, the Civil Court, insofar as is relevant, granted plaintiff’s motion. This appeal by defendant ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered on December 12, 2017, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

For the reasons stated in Lida’s Med. Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Johan Gaston v Global Liberty Ins. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-2381 K C], decided herewith), the judgment is reversed, so much of the order entered May 10, 2017 as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is vacated and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

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