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.

Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Maureen Knodel 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 (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered May 4, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, 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 so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court, in effect, limited the issue for trial, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), to whether defendant established that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled IMEs.

For the reasons stated in Allay Med. Servs., P.C., as Assignee of Mills, Keith A. v Metropolitan Gen. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-2389 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s 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 Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Janice A. Robinson of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered September 23, 2015. The judgment, upon a decision of that court dated December 22, 2014, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated December 22, 2014 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered September 23, 2015 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

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

At a nonjury trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the only issue to be tried was whether plaintiff had failed to appear for scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court dismissed the complaint, finding that defendant had established that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court’s opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility [*2](see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492 [1983]; Hamilton v Blackwood, 85 AD3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824 [2008]). Upon a review of the testimony and evidence which was admitted at trial without objection, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court’s finding.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (David Landfair of counsel), for appellant. Goldberg, Miller & Rubin (Harlan R. Schreiber of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered October 18, 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’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations.

For the reasons stated in Allay Med. Servs., P.C., as Assignee of Mills, Keith A. v Metropolitan Gen. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-2389 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Nathan Shapiro 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 (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered September 11, 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 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 examinations under oath (EUOs).

In its cross motion, defendant established that initial and follow-up letters scheduling an EUO had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]); that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear on either date (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]); and that the claims had been timely denied on that ground (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s cross motion, the cross motion should have been granted.

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

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