Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered July 27, 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 on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs), and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s cross motion 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 cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

However, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should also have been denied. While defendant submitted properly sworn statements by the acupuncturist and doctor who had been scheduled to perform the IMEs, neither health care professional demonstrated personal knowledge of the nonappearance of plaintiff’s assignor for the examinations, and therefore defendant failed to establish its entitlement as a matter of law to the dismissal of the complaint (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]; Bright Med. Supply Co. v IDS Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 40 Misc 3d 130[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51123[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Quality Health Prods. v Hertz Claim Mgt. Corp., 36 Misc 3d 154[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51722[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant’s motion for summary [*2]judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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

Defendant appeals from an order the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered October 15, 2013, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered October 15, 2013, reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the action for first-party no-fault benefits by establishing that it timely and properly mailed the notices for independent medical examinations (IMEs) to plaintiffs’ assignor, and that the assignor failed to appear (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423 [2013]; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Solorzano, 108 AD3d 449 [2013]). Contrary to the motion court’s conclusion, defendant submitted competent evidence of the assignor’s nonappearance, including the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining physician and chiropractor/acupuncturist, attesting to the affiants’ personal knowledge of their office practices and policies when an assignor fails to appear for a scheduled IME (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d at 424; Harmonic Physical Therapy v Encompass Home & Auto Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 146[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50733[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015]).

In opposition to defendant’s prima facie showing, plaintiffs did not specifically deny the assignor’s nonappearance or otherwise raise a triable issue with respect thereto, or as to the mailing or reasonableness of the underlying notices (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]).

In view of our determination, we reach no other issue.

Defendant, as limited by the briefs, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered March 4, 2014, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the no-fault claims of plaintiff L.N.L. Physical Therapy Rehabilitation, for services rendered September 2, 2010 through November 23, 2010 and January 3, 2011 through March 14, 2011, in the amount of $2,220.

Per Curiam.

Order (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered March 4, 2014, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and the no-fault claims of plaintiff L.N.L. Physical Therapy Rehabilitation in the amount of $2,220, dismissed.

The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the first-party no-fault claims of plaintiff L.N.L. Physical Therapy Rehabilitation (“plaintiff”) in the aggregate sum of $2,220, by establishing that it timely denied the claims based on the independent medical examination (IME) report and follow-up report of its examining orthopedic doctor, which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for her stated conclusion that the assignor’s injuries were resolved and that there was no need for further physical therapy treatment. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue. The affidavit of plaintiff’s treating physical therapist failed to meaningfully address the contrary findings made by defendant’s examining doctor, including the normal results of the range of motion testing of the assignor’s cervical and lumbar spine (see CPT Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 87 [1st Dept 2007]). Defendant’s remaining arguments, raised for the first time in its reply brief, are not entitled to consideration (Mehmet v Add2Net, Inc., 66 AD3d 437 [2009]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered September 26, 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 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff seeks to recover for supplies it provided to its assignor for injuries he had sustained in a motor

In January 2012, plaintiff moved for summary judgment in the instant action, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the October 26, 2012 Supreme Court order in the declaratory judgment action barred the instant action pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. By order entered September 26, 2013, the Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the Civil Court correctly determined that the instant action is barred under the doctrine of res judicata by virtue of the October 26, 2012 Supreme Court order (see Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 149[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50233[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). To hold otherwise could result in a judgment in this action which would destroy or impair rights established by the order rendered by the Supreme Court in the declaratory judgment action (see Schuykill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]; Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 149[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50233[U]). Moreover, the Supreme Court’s [*2]order is a conclusive final determination notwithstanding that it was entered on default, and res judicata applies to an order or judgment taken by default which has not been vacated (see Lazides v P & G Enters., 58 AD3d 607 [2009]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Williams, 29 AD3d 688, 690 [2000]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Facey, 272 AD2d 399 [2000]; Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 149[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50233[U]). Plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit or are unpreserved for appellate review.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered December 20, 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 on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had not provided verification as requested by defendant.

A review of the record reveals that triable issues of fact exist, including whether plaintiff adequately responded to defendant’s verification requests. Consequently, neither party is entitled to summary judgment (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.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered November 14, 2012. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and, upon searching the record, granted defendant reverse summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is modified by striking the provision which, upon a search of the record, granted defendant reverse summary judgment dismissing the complaint; 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, upon searching the record, granted defendant reverse summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

On the record before us, we find that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the claims at issue had been submitted to defendant. Therefore, neither party was entitled to summary judgment (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by striking the provision which, upon a search of the record, granted defendant reverse summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 November 14, 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 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 claims based on plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant established that EUO scheduling letters 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 EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Since defendant demonstrated that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (id. at 722) and that defendant had timely denied (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16) the claims on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled EUOs, defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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