Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Joseph E. Capella,, J.), entered May 24, 2013, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Joseph E. Capella,, J.), entered May 24, 2013, affirmed, without costs.

We sustain the denial of defendant-insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing this first-party, no-fault action. Defendant failed to “meet its burden by proof in admissible form, because it submitted no evidence from anyone with personal knowledge of the nonappearances [at the scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs)]” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]). In this regard, we note that while the affirmation of defendant’s attorney described the office procedures for contacting a claimant 48 hours prior to the scheduled EUO to confirm the appearance, it failed to demonstrate personal knowledge of the office procedures when a claimant failed to appear for the EUOs on the scheduled dates (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423 [2013]). Nor did the affiant state that he was the attorney assigned to conduct the EUOs, (cf. Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 AD3d 411 [2015]).

Insofar as the motion court also concluded that the claims were untimely denied, we note that the defense of failure to appear for EUOs may be asserted by an insurer regardless of the timeliness of the denial (see Allstate Ins. Co. v Pierre, 123 AD3d 618 [2014]; Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]). .

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered November 12, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Tanya R. Kennedy, J.), entered November 12, 2014, modified to deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment and to reinstate the complaint; as modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs.

This action, seeking recovery of assigned first-party no-fault benefits, is not ripe for summary disposition. While defendant established that it properly mailed the notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) to plaintiff’s assignor and his attorney (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Marte-Rosario, 111 AD3d 442 [2013]), the record raises triable issues as to whether the assignor failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]; Village Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 51 Misc 3d 126[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50339[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]; Metro 8 Med. Equip., Inc. v ELRAC, Inc., 50 Misc 3d 140[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50174[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]). The existence of triable issues precludes an award of summary judgment to either party.

Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and/or without merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Paul L. Alpert, J.), entered June 8, 2015, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Paul L. Alpert, J.), entered June 8, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs.

While defendant-insurer established that it timely and properly mailed the notices for examinations under oath to plaintiff’s assignor and his attorney, and that the assignor failed to appear at the initial and follow-up EUOs (see Allstate Ins. Co. v Pierre, 123 AD3d 618 [2014]; see also Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 AD3d 411 [2015]), the limited record so far developed presents triable issues as to whether the assignor’s failure to appear was excusable (see IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stracar Med. Servs., P.C., 116 AD3d 1005, 1007 [2014]). In this regard, defendant’s moving submission, which contains letters from its no-fault examiner and no-fault supervisor acknowledging the assignor’s incarceration, creates rather than eliminates genuine triable issues. We note that the exact period of the assignor’s incarceration remain unclear on this record.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining contentions.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Appeal from a decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), dated April 18, 2013, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered May 30, 2014 (see CPLR 5512 [a]). The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,150.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the Civil Court, following a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff judgment in the principal sum of $1,150.

For the reasons stated in Brand Med. Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Steven Thomas v Infinity Ins. Co. (— Misc 3d &mdash, 2016 NY Slip Op — [appeal No. 2014-2032 K C], decided herewith), the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered July 23, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for services billed using CPT code 97026.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for services billed using CPT code 97026 is denied.

In this action by provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the portion of the complaint as sought to recover for services billed using CPT code 97026.

Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant’s moving papers failed to demonstrate defendant’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with respect to so much of the complaint as sought to recover for services billed using CPT code 97026 (Rogy Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 23 Misc 3d 132[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50732[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see generally Sunrise Acupuncture PC v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 42 Misc 3d 151[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50435[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2014]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for services billed using CPT code 97026 is denied.

Elliot, J.P., Weston and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lisa S. Ottley, J.), entered July 29, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands.

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 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant’s motion and denying plaintiff’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Jennifer Donofrio v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (____ Misc 3d _____, 2016 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2014-1991 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

Elliot, J.P., Weston and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered August 8, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands.

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 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant’s motion and denying plaintiff’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Jennifer Donofrio v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (____ Misc 3d _____, 2016 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2014-1991 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

Elliot, J.P., Weston and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered July 8, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands.

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 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant’s answer and affirmative defenses, and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant’s motion and denying plaintiff’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Professional Health Imaging, P.C., as Assignee of Jennifer Donofrio v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (____ Misc 3d _____, 2016 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2014-1991 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

Elliot, J.P., Weston and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered August 12, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

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, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s contention that its motion for summary judgment should have been granted lacks merit. Plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law since it did not establish either that defendant had failed to deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period (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 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 and 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

We decline defendant’s request that we search the record and grant defendant summary judgment dismissing portions of each of plaintiff’s claims.

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

Elliot, J.P., Weston and Solomon, JJ., concur.