Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered March 4, 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.

As to plaintiff’s second cause of action, the affidavit by plaintiff’s billing manager was sufficient to demonstrate that the claim had been mailed to defendant in accordance with plaintiff’s standard office practice and procedure (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). However, the affidavit by defendant’s no-fault examiner was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant had ever received that claim. Thus, there is an issue of fact as to whether defendant’s time to pay or deny this claim ever began to run (see Healing Health Prods., Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 59 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; cf. Bright Med. Supply Co. v Tri State Consumer Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51122[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]).

As to the remaining causes of action, defendant’s cross motion was sufficient to make a prima facie showing that plaintiff had failed to respond to defendant’s initial and follow-up requests for verification as to the claims upon which these causes of action were based. However, as plaintiff argues on appeal, plaintiff’s opposition was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had responded to those verification requests. Therefore, neither party is entitled to summary judgment on these causes of action (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

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.

Decision Date: August 06, 2015

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Anna Culley, J.), entered December 21, 2012. 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.

Plaintiff’s moving papers failed to establish either that defendant had failed to deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 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, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Thus, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

However, defendant failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it had filed a copy of the notice of cancellation, upon which its defense is based, with the Department of Motor Vehicles within 30 days of the effective date of the cancellation as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (2) (a) (see Matter of Progressive Classic Ins. Co. v Kitchen, 46 AD3d 333 [2007]). Therefore, defendant has not demonstrated that the cancellation is effective with respect to plaintiff’s assignor, who was not the named insured or a member of his household (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [3]). Consequently, defendant should not have been awarded summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered April 1, 2010. 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 providers 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.

With respect to the bills sued upon by Neomy Medical, P.C., defendant failed to demonstrate that the denial of claim forms had been timely and properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). With respect to the bills sued upon by Perfect Point Acupuncture, P.C., defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the fees charged exceeded the amount set forth in the workers’ compensation fee schedule (see Rogy Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 23 Misc 3d 132[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50732[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). In view of the foregoing, the Civil Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. 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, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered December 12, 2012. 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.

In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affirmation by the attorney who was to conduct examinations under oath (EUOs) of plaintiff’s assignor, in which he asserted that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear. However, as plaintiff notes, defendant’s motion papers do not unequivocally demonstrate that defendant’s counsel was present on either of the dates of the scheduled EUOs at the office of the court reporting company to which plaintiff’s assignor was directed to go. As a result, defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint because defendant’s papers failed to make a prima facie showing 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]). Since plaintiff failed to show that its assignor had appeared for either of the EUOs, plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied (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, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

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

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Anna Culley, J.), entered December 19, 2012. 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 arguments on appeal, the affidavits submitted by defendant sufficiently established the timely mailing of the denial of claim forms (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Furthermore, the affidavit executed by defendant’s certified professional coder established that defendant had properly used the workers’ compensation fee schedule to determine the amount which plaintiff was entitled to receive for the services at issue (see Raz Acupuncture, P.C. v AIG Indem. Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 127[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51177[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Plaintiff’s papers failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s cross motion. Consequently, the Civil Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

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 March 28, 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.

A review of the record reveals that there are triable issues of fact regarding defendant’s defense of lack of medical necessity. Consequently, defendant’s motion was properly denied (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

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.

The evidence submitted by defendant in support of its motion established that defendant had timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]) the denial of claim forms at issue, which denied the claims on the ground of lack of medical necessity. Defendant also submitted an affirmed peer review report, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue. Plaintiff did not submit any medical evidence in opposition to rebut defendant’s prima facie showing. Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut.Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered December 6, 2012. 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 and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

All of plaintiff’s arguments as to why defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied are not properly before this court, since they are being raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to consider them (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 [2011]; Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 [2004]). 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 February 28, 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 moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely and properly denied the claim at issue based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments on appeal, the evidence submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion was sufficient to demonstrate 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]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]) and that plaintiff’s 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]). As an assignor’s appearance at a duly scheduled IME “is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy” (id. at 722), the Civil Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion. In light of the foregoing, we do not reach plaintiff’s remaining contentions.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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