Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Nathan Shapiro of counsel), for appellant. Gabriel & Shapiro, LLC (Max Valerio of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated August 28, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon 17 of 21 claims set forth therein, other than those in the amounts of $148.69, $188.16, $54.74 and $138.72, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment upon the entire complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon 17 of 21 claims set forth therein, other than those in the amounts of $148.69, $188.16, $54.74 and $138.72, are granted, and the branches of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking summary judgment upon so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon those 17 claims are denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the District Court as denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon 17 of 21 claims set forth therein, other than those in the amounts of $148.69, $188.16, $54.74 and $138.72, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment upon the entire complaint. The District Court determined that letters scheduling examinations under oath (EUOs) of plaintiff were defective because they did not specify the claims to which the letters pertained.

Defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Contrary to [*2]the finding by the District Court, the EUO scheduling letters were not “defective.” We note that the initial EUO scheduling letter identified the assignor, the date of the accident and defendant’s file number. The initial EUO scheduling letter resulted in a toll of defendant’s time to pay or deny plaintiff’s claims as to each claim form which had been submitted by the same plaintiff for the same assignor and accident prior to the EUO request, as long as the request had been timely with respect to such claim, and to any claim form received subsequent to that request, but before plaintiff breached a policy condition by failing to appear for two properly scheduled EUOs (see ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; see also Tsatskis v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 36 Misc 3d 129[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51268[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). Defendant further established that plaintiff had failed to appear for the duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]) and that defendant had timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123) its denial of claim forms denying the claims on that ground. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. However, defendant concedes that it failed to timely request EUOs for claims in the amounts of $148.69, $188.16, $54.74 and $138.72 and offers no basis to disturb so much of the order as granted plaintiff summary judgment on those claims.

Defendant, if it be so advised, may move in the District Court to resettle the order of the District Court to correct the error regarding defendant’s name in the caption therein.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon 17 of 21 claims set forth therein, other than those in the amounts of $148.69, $188.16, $54.74 and $138.72, are granted, and the branches of plaintiff’s cross motion seeking summary judgment upon so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon those 17 claims are denied.

ADAMS, P.J., GARGUILO and EMERSON, JJ., concur.

Decided on March 22, 2019

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Decided on March 22, 2019

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff 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 16, 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). By order entered December 16, 2016, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal is that defendant’s motion should have been denied because plaintiff objected to defendant’s EUO demands and defendant failed to establish that the demands were reasonable.

The record reflects that plaintiff, in effect, objected to defendant’s EUO scheduling letters in connection with assignor Rosemary Leon on the ground that the letters did not set forth the objective standards on which the EUO demands were based or sufficiently specify the reasons for the demands, and further requested that defendant provide both the objective standards and reasons for the demands. Since plaintiff failed to submit proof that it had mailed an objection letter in connection with assignor Adris Maria, plaintiff’s argument with respect to that assignor lacks any basis (see e.g. Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Aut. Ins. Co., 52 Misc 3d 132[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50997[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]).

Defendant was not required to provide the reason for its demand for an EUO in response to an objection from plaintiff. “No ‘provision of No-Fault Regulations 68 requires an insurer’s notice of scheduling an EUO to specify the reason(s) why the insurer is requiring the EUOs’ ” (Flow Chiropractic, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co.,44 Misc 3d 132[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51142[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014], quoting Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 06-12-16 [December 2006]). Similarly, “[t]here is no requirement in the [*2]regulation that a No-Fault insurer must provide a copy of their internal guidelines [regarding objective justification] for requiring an EUO upon the request of a claimant for benefits” (Ops Gen Counsel NY Ins Dept No. 02-10-14 [October 2002]). The Department of Financial Services’^[FN1] interpretation of the No-Fault Regulations is entitled to deference unless that interpretation is ” ‘irrational’ ” or ” ‘unreasonable’ ” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006], quoting Matter of John Paterno, Inc. v Curiale, 88 NY2d 328, 333 [1996]), which is not the case here. Since defendant was not required to provide—either in its scheduling letters or in response to an objection from plaintiff—the reason for its demand or the objective standards upon which its EUO demands were based, and since that is the only ground for plaintiff’s appeal, there is no basis to disturb the order appealed from.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Footnotes

Footnote 1:In 2011, the Insurance Department and the Banking Department merged into the newly created “Department of Financial Services.”

Decided on March 22, 2019

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of James F. Sullivan, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered May 2, 2016. The order granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking to hold the action in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board of the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

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 or, in the alternative, to hold the action in abeyance pending an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board to determine the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s alleged eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits. By order entered May 2, 2016, the Civil Court granted the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking to hold the action in abeyance. Plaintiff appeals.

Defendant proffered sufficient evidence to support its contention that there is an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s assignor had been acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident and that, therefore, workers’ compensation benefits might be available (see New Millennium Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 60 Misc 3d 128[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50940[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]; Compas Med., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 146[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51675[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; Arce Med. & Diagnostic Svce v American Tr. Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 134[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50531[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; cf. Westchester Med. Ctr. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 848 [2009]). “Since primary jurisdiction with respect to the determination as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board, it is ‘inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by the board’ ” (Monteiro [*2]v Rasraj Foods & Catering, Inc., 79 AD3d 827, 829 [2010], quoting Botwinick v Ogden, 59 NY2d 909, 911 [1983]). In the case at bar, the Civil Court correctly recognized that the issue of eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits must be resolved in the first instance by the Workers’ Compensation Board (see O’Rourke v Long, 41 NY2d 219 [1976]; Siekkeli v Mark Mariani, Inc., 119 AD3d 766 [2014]; Dunn v American Tr. Ins. Co., 71 AD3d 629 [2010]; New Millennium Radiology, P.C., 60 Misc 3d 128[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50940[U]) before the court considers whether plaintiff is entitled to recover first-party no-fault benefits.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Decided on March 8, 2019

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Decided on March 8, 2019

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Decided on March 8, 2019

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Decided on March 8, 2019

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS