Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered February 11, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking 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 appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Upon a review of the record, we agree with the Civil Court’s determination that there is a triable issue of fact regarding the medical necessity of the services at issue (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

We note that the Civil Court failed to determine the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for a deposition, and, thus, that branch of defendant’s motion remains pending and undecided (see Creese v Long Is. Light. Co., 98 AD3d 708, 711 [2012]; W.W. Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51743[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).

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

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered January 23, 2014. The order denied 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, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the Civil Court correctly found that defendant’s moving papers failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (see Alrof, Inc. v Safeco Natl. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50458[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]). In addition, defendant’s moving papers do not demonstrate timely mailing of defendant’s denial of claim forms (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 Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered November 13, 2013. The order denied 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, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

To establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing a complaint on the ground that the plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for an examination under oath (EUO), an insurer must demonstrate “as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider’s] assignor, . . . that the assignor twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claims arising from the [provider’s] treatment of the assignor” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]). Here, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that its denial of claim forms had been properly and timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). We reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Barry A. Schwartz, J.), entered October 23, 2013. 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 which denied 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).

In support of its motion, defendant established that, before receiving the claims at issue, it had mailed letters scheduling an initial and follow-up IME (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]). Defendant further demonstrated that, upon receipt of the claims, it had timely mailed initial and follow-up requests for written verification (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; 65-3.8 [l]; St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123). Finally, defendant established that, upon receiving the requested verification, it had timely denied the claims at issue based upon the assignor’s failure to appear for IMEs (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [l]; St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 38 Misc 3d 143[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50258[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered November 19, 2013. 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.

For the reasons stated in Metro Health Prods., Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (49 Misc 3d 130[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51419[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]), the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered November 20, 2013. 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff argues on appeal, as it did in the Civil Court, that defendant failed to establish that its fee schedule reductions were proper. We disagree and find that defendant demonstrated that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23, 24 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009] [“we hold, as a matter of law, that an insurer may use the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine the amount which a licensed acupuncturist is entitled to receive for such acupuncture services”]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered June 20, 2013. 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.

Contrary to plaintiff’s only contentions, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), and to demonstrate that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered June 18, 2013. 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 modified by providing that defendant’s cross 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 denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment was predicated upon the defense that defendant had timely denied the claims at issue based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). In order to prove that the EUO letters had been timely mailed, defendant submitted two affidavits, each describing a portion of defendant’s practices and procedures. While the affidavit that describes defendant’s mail room practices and procedures alleges that defendant mailed EUO scheduling letters on October 1, 2010 and October 29, 2010, the other affidavit, which alleges, based upon a combination of personal knowledge and practices and procedures, that a scheduling letter was prepared for mailing on October 29, 2010, does not even mention the October 1, 2010 letter. Thus, defendant did not demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff’s contention that its motion for summary judgment should have been granted lacks merit. Plaintiff’s moving papers failed to establish that the claims at issue 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 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]).

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

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.