Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Carol R. Feinman, J.), entered April 1, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Carol R. Feinman, J.), entered April 1, 2015, reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant’s motion denied.

Defendant-insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the underlying first-party no-fault action should have been denied, inasmuch as it failed to submit competent proof of the assignor’s nonappearance at scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]). The conclusory affidavits of defendant’s IME doctors lacked probative value, since they failed to adequately state the basis of their recollection, some three years later, that the assignor did not appear on the scheduled IME dates (see 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]).

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 (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered July 6, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered July 6, 2015, reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant’s motion denied.

This action, seeking recovery of assigned first-party no-fault benefits, is not ripe for summary dismissal. Although defendant claims that the assignor failed to appear for two scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs), defendant failed to show that the scheduling of the IMEs complied with the procedures and time frames set forth in Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-3.5(d); see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Vance, 131 AD3d 849 [2015]; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Longevity, 131 AD3d 841 [2015]; Acupuncture, Approach, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 46 Misc 3d 151[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50318[U] [App Term, 1st Dept. 2015]). In this regard, there is no indication in the record as to when defendant received plaintiff-provider’s no-fault claims and thus no basis to determine the timeliness of defendant’s IME requests. Although this issue was raised for the first time on appeal, it presents a question of law which this Court can review (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Longevity, 131 AD3d at 841-842).

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 (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), dated August 18, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), August 18, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs.

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 plaintiff’s 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]). Defendant submitted competent evidence of the assignor’s nonappearance in the form of the sworn affidavits of the scheduled examining physician and an employee of defendant’s third-party IME scheduler, setting forth sufficient facts to demonstrate the affiants’ personal knowledge of the assignor’s repeated failures to appear for the IMEs and the 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).

In opposition, plaintiff 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]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

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 (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered March 4, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered March 4, 2015, reversed, with $10 costs, and defendant’s motion denied.

Defendant-insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the underlying first-party no-fault action should have been denied, inasmuch as it failed to submit competent proof of the assignor’s nonappearance at scheduled independent medical examinations (IME) (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 721 [2006]). The conclusory affidavits of defendant’s IME doctors lacked probative value, since they failed to state the basis of their recollection, some 8 years later, that the assignor did not appear on the scheduled IME dates (see 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]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered March 12, 2015, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered March 12, 2015, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The affidavits and other documentary evidence submitted by defendant established, prima facie, that it timely denied (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) plaintiff’s no-fault claims on the ground that the fees plaintiff charged for the acupuncture services it rendered to the assignor exceeded the amount permitted by the worker’s compensation fee schedule (see Akita Med. Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 134[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51860[U] [App Term, 1st Dept. 2013]; Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d Dept. 2009]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue as to the efficacy of defendant’s mailing of the denial or the calculation of the fee pertaining to these claims. Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim — which sought the difference between the amount charged for the services and payments made to plaintiff pursuant to the fee schedule — should have been granted.

Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are either unpreserved or lacking in merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: September 19, 2016

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered March 12, 2015, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered March 12, 2015, modified by granting defendant partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim for first-party no-fault benefits billed under CPT codes 97813 and 97814; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

The affidavits and other documentary evidence submitted by defendant established, prima facie, that it timely denied (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) plaintiff’s no-fault claims billed under CPT codes 97813 and 97814 on the ground that the amounts charged were in excess of the fees set forth in the applicable worker’s compensation fee schedule (see Akita Med. Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 134[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51860[U] [App Term, 1st Dept. 2013]; Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d Dept. 2009]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue as to the efficacy of defendant’s mailing of the denial or the calculation of the fee pertaining to these claims.

However, triable issues remain as to whether defendant properly denied plaintiff’s claim for $70, billed under CPT code 99202 (initial evaluation), thus precluding summary judgment dismissing this claim (see Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d 127[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51849[U][App Term, 1st Dept. 2015]).

Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are either unpreserved or lacking in merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: September 19, 2016

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michael L. Katz, J.), entered May 14, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Michael L. Katz, J.), entered May 14, 2015, reversed, with $10 costs, motion denied and default judgment reinstated.

Defendant-insurer failed to offer a reasonable excuse to adequately explain its two-year delay in answering the complaint in this action seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The affidavit of defendant’s claim representative, who was employed in defendant’s office in Hauppauge, New York, averred that there was no record of the summons and complaint in defendant’s computer system. However, the affiant failed to demonstrate personal knowledge of the office procedures put in place by defendant in connection with the handling of a summons and complaint received at defendant’s office in Lake Success, New York (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 69 AD3d 613 [2010]; Medcare Supply, Inc. v Farmers New Century Ins. Co., 45 Misc 3d 135[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51752[U][App Term, 1st Dept. 2014]). “Thus, that affidavit was insufficient to show that the failure to timely appear and answer was due to a clerical error which caused the summons and complaint to be overlooked” (Westchester Med. Ctr., 69 AD3d at 614). Accordingly, there is no need to reach the issue of meritorious defense (see Uram v Smith, 138 AD3d 553 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.