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.

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.