The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell 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 (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered January 31, 2017. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross 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 denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions on appeal, defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). To the extent plaintiff challenges the address to which the EUO scheduling letters were mailed, a review of the record shows that defendant mailed the EUO scheduling letters to the address provided by plaintiff in the bills it sent to defendant.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice 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 (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered December 15, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims 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. By order entered December 15, 2016, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, the Civil Court denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking dismissal of so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims.

For the reasons stated in Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Boodoo, Anselm Kevin v GEICO Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-635 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims is granted.

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

The Law Office of Printz & Goldstein (Lawrence J. Chanice 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 (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered December 15, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims 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 that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services at issue, which had been rendered prior to April 1, 2013. By order entered December 15, 2016, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, the Civil Court denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking dismissal of so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims.

Defendant demonstrated that it had timely denied the claims at issue (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that it had properly used the workers’ compensation fee schedule to determine the amount which plaintiff was entitled to receive for the services in question (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App [*2]Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). As plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s showing,

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims is granted.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin Toell of counsel), for appellant. Abrams, Cohen & Associates, P.C. (Frank Piccininni 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 23, 2016. 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 the insured vehicle had not been involved in the alleged accident in question.

In support of its motion, defendant submitted the transcript of the examination under oath (EUO) of its insured, in which she testified that she had been parking her vehicle at the time of the alleged accident, that no accident had occurred and that plaintiff’s assignor, a pedestrian, had not been struck by her vehicle. In a supporting affidavit, the insured attested to the same facts. The EUO testimony and the affidavit are sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that “the alleged injury [did] not arise out of an insured incident” (Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; see Andromeda Med. Care, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 126[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52601[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Midwood Med. Equip. & Supply, Inc. v USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 25 Misc 3d 139[A], [*2]2009 NY Slip Op 52379[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Since plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion only with an affirmation by counsel, who did not assert that he possessed personal knowledge of the facts, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s motion (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Plaintiff’s remaining contention lacks merit.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Robyn M. Brilliant 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 (Joy F. Campanelli, J.), entered February 15, 2014, deemed from a judgment of that court entered June 22, 2017 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the February 15, 2014 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,652.63.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, the order entered February 15, 2014 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied 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 an order of the Civil Court granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of medical necessity. By order entered February 15, 2014, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion. Defendant’s appeal from the February 15, 2014 order is deemed from a judgment that was entered on June 22, 2017 pursuant to the order (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

In support of its cross motion, defendant established that the denial of claim forms, which had denied the claims on the ground of lack of medical necessity, had been timely mailed (see St.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the order entered February 15, 2014 is vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, 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 decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), dated September 26, 2016, deemed from a judgment of that court entered November 29, 2016 (see CPLR 5512 [a]). The judgment, entered pursuant to a decision of the same court dated September 26, 2016, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the sole issue for trial (see CPLR 3212 [g]) was whether the verification requested by defendant had been provided. The only witness at trial was an employee of defendant who testified that defendant had not received the requested verification. The Civil Court found the testimony to be credible and entered judgment dismissing the complaint.

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole argument, the testimony by defendant’s witness was sufficient to establish that defendant had not received the requested verification. The witness, a 27-year employee of defendant, testified regarding defendant’s policies and procedures for the receipt of mail, both at the Buffalo office, where certain items were sent, and the Melville office, where the claims at issue were processed.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Darya Klein of counsel), for appellant. Bryan Cave, LLP (Laurie Belony of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered January 11, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 moved 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 plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal is that defendant mailed the IME scheduling letters to the assignor’s address without using an apartment number, and that, therefore, that defendant’s motion should have been denied. However, the record demonstrates conclusively that the address to which defendant mailed the letters matched the address provided by plaintiff on its bill and by plaintiff’s assignor on the assignor’s application for no-fault benefits (NF-2). Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that defendant did not give the assignor proper notice of the IMEs (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]).

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

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