The Law Office of Printz & Goldstein (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C. (Emilia I. Rutigliano of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered February 3, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,184.90.

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

At a nonjury trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the sole issue was the medical necessity of the services in question. The Civil Court precluded the testimony of defendant’s expert witness and granted plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict. Defendant appeals from the judgment that was subsequently entered in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,184.90.

For the reasons stated in Nova Chiropractic Servs., P.C., as Assignee of Miguel A. Vizcaino v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-1054 K C], decided herewith), the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

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

The Law Office of Printz & Goldstein (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. Law Office Ilona Finkelshteyn, P.C. (Emilia I. Rutigliano of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered January 29, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,310.94.

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

At a nonjury trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the sole issue was the medical necessity of the services in question. The Civil Court precluded the testimony of defendant’s expert witness and granted plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict. Defendant appeals from the judgment that was subsequently entered in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,310.94.

For the reasons stated in Nova Chiropractic Servs., P.C., as Assignee of Miguel A. Vizcaino v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-1054 K C], decided herewith), the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

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

The Law Office of Printz & Goldstein (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C. (Emilia I. Rutigliano of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered January 29, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,184.90.

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

At a nonjury trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the sole issue was the medical necessity of the services in question. The Civil Court precluded the testimony of defendant’s expert witness and granted plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict. Defendant appeals from the judgment that was subsequently entered in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,184.90.

For the reasons stated in Nova Chiropractic Servs., P.C., as Assignee of Miguel A. Vizcaino v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-1054 K C], decided herewith), the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

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

Law Office of Goldstein & Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Ilona Finkelshteyn, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered January 29, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,184.90.

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

At a nonjury trial of this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the sole issue was the medical necessity of the services in question. The Civil Court precluded the testimony of defendant’s expert witness and granted plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict. Defendant appeals from the judgment that was subsequently entered in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $2,184.90.

For the reasons stated in Nova Chiropractic Servs., P.C., as Assignee of Miguel A. Vizcaino v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-1054 K C], decided herewith), the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Daniel J. Tucker, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), dated December 2, 2015. 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.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions on appeal, defendant established that the examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and 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]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered January 21, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, 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 moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs), and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered January 21, 2016, the Civil Court denied the motion and cross motion, but, insofar as is relevant here, found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and the denial of claim forms, as well as plaintiff’s failure to appear for the EUOs. The Civil Court further found that the only remaining issue for trial was “the nexus between where the bill is received and where the verification and denial is processed and mailed from Ballston Spa, when bill was received in Atlanta, Ga [sic].” As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

For the reasons stated in Maiga Prods. Corp., as Assignee of Jean-Francois, Michael v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2018 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-426 [*2]K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel ), for appellant. Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Deepak D. Sohi of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered May 23, 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, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the amounts plaintiff sought to recover, for services rendered after April 1, 2013, were in excess of the workers’ compensation fee schedule.

Plaintiff argues that defendant failed to establish that defendant’s fee reductions, which had been done in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors, were proper. However, this court has held, “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” (Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23, 24 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Maryana Feigen of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered May 24, 2016. 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 on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to establish the proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not considered because they are raised for the first time on appeal (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 [2011]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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