Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Ilona Finkelshteyn, 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 $1,501.92 (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 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]).

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied as the proof submitted by plaintiff failed to establish that the claim had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim form that was 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]).

Accordingly, 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.

Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Alla Pecker of counsel), for appellant. Strauss Terry Law Group, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Lizette Colon, J.), entered June 29, 2017. 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 had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

The proof defendant submitted was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the initial and follow-up verification requests had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), and to demonstrate that defendant had not received the requested verification.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant was not required to pay or deny plaintiff’s claims upon receipt of a “partial response” to defendant’s verification requests (see 11 NYCRR [*2]65-3.8 [a] [1]; [b] [3]; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 570 [2004] [“A claim need not be paid or denied until all demanded verification is provided”]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s 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. Law Office of Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered August 23, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, 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 from so much of an order of the Civil Court as 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 (IMEs).

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by a supervisor employed by Omnimed Evaluation Services, which had been retained by defendant to schedule 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 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 [*2]coverage (id. at 722). As defendant’s cross motion further 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 cross motion, defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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.

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of John Gallagher, PLLC, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Andrew Borrok, J.), entered July 5, 2017. 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, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground, among others, that it had timely and properly denied the claims at issue based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). In an order entered July 5, 2017, the Civil Court denied defendant’s cross motion, but, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a), held that the only remaining issue for trial was whether the assignor’s address to which the IME scheduling letters had been mailed was proper.

The record demonstrates conclusively that while the address to which defendant mailed the letters did not include an apartment number, the address matched the one provided by plaintiff’s assignor on the assignor’s sworn application for no-fault benefits (NF-2) and on the assignor’s sworn notice of intention to make claim form which was submitted to defendant. [*2]Consequently, defendant established that the address to which the IME scheduling letters were mailed was proper (see Sunlight Med. Care, P.C. v Esurance Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 130[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51410[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). 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 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 appellants. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Mary V. Rosado, J.), entered June 6, 2017. 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 had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim form had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Furthermore, as this court has repeatedly stated, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate “as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [*2][provider] . . . that the [provider] twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[]” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; see Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co., 64 Misc 3d 137[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51161[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; 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 & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, plaintiff has not provided any basis to disturb the Civil Court’s order.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Daria Klein of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Lisa Taranto-Fernandez of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered July 22, 2016. The order granted defendant’s motion to vacate a notice of trial and certificate of readiness and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for, among other things, a protective order and to strike defendant’s affirmative defenses.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant’s answer, served in June 2015, was accompanied by, among other things a demand for written interrogatories. After plaintiff served a notice of trial and certificate of readiness in September 2015, which stated that discovery was waived, defendant moved to vacate same, asserting that, contrary to plaintiff’s representation, discovery was not waived. Plaintiff cross-moved for, among other things, a protective order and to strike defendant’s affirmative defenses. The Civil Court granted defendant’s motion and denied plaintiff’s cross motion.

The court properly granted defendant’s timely motion to vacate the notice of trial (see Uniform Rules for NY City Civ Ct [22 NYCRR] § 208.17 [c]) since it was based upon a certificate of readiness which contains the erroneous statement that discovery was waived (see [*2]Savino v Lewittes, 160 AD2d 176 [1990]; First Aid Occupational Therapy, PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 21 Misc 3d 128[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51963[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). In addition, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s cross motion seeking a protective order. Plaintiff’s remaining contention lacks merit.

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. (Stefan Belinfanti of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered August 15, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,342.08.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

At the commencement of a nonjury trial in this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the parties stipulated that the sole issue was whether the letters scheduling plaintiff’s assignor’s examinations under oath (EUOs) were timely and properly mailed. The only witness at trial was an employee of defendant who testified as to defendant’s policies and procedures regarding mailing EUO scheduling letters.

Contrary to the finding of the Civil Court, defendant established that the initial and follow-up letters scheduling an EUO had been timely and properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

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