Decided on December 8, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-1712 K C

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered May 21, 2014. The order held defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in abeyance pending an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board to determine the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s alleged eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits. The Civil Court held the motion in abeyance pending an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board to determine the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff appeals.

The order appealed from did not decide defendant’s motion but instead, as noted, held the motion in abeyance pending a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board as to whether plaintiff’s assignor had been acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident and whether, therefore, workers’ compensation benefits might be available (see O’Rourke v Long, [*2]41 NY2d 219 [1976]). Thus, the order is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Acunto v Stewart Ave. Gardens, LLC, 26 AD3d 305 [2006]) and, under the circumstances, we decline to grant leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Decided on December 8, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-1695 K C

Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov, Esq.), for appellant. McDonnell, Adels & Klestzick, PLLC, respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered May 21, 2014. 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. Defendant’s cross motion was based on plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath.

Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that the affidavits submitted by defendant did not sufficiently set forth a standard office practice or procedure that would ensure that the verification requests and denial of claim forms had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of [*2]Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Thus, defendant did not demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

However, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the affidavit plaintiff submitted in support of its motion failed to establish that the claims at issue had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]) or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (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 Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). As a result, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

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.

Decided on December 8, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2014-1527 Q C

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered June 3, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through eighth causes of action and, upon denying the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the ninth and tenth causes of action, found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had “established its 8-unit [Ground Rule] (fee schedule) defense,” thereby “reduc[ing]” the claims underlying the ninth and tenth causes of action “to reflect the proper rate.”

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second, third, and sixth through eighth causes of action are denied, and the findings, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), on the ninth and tenth causes of action are vacated; as so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branches of defendant’s [*2]motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through eighth causes of action and, upon denying the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the ninth and tenth causes of action, found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had “established its 8-unit [Ground Rule] (fee schedule) defense” and stated that “those portions [of the complaint] are reduced to reflect the proper rate.”

There is no merit to plaintiff’s argument regarding the adequacy of the proof submitted by defendant to establish that defendant had fully paid plaintiff for the claims underlying the first, fourth and fifth causes of action in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule. However, as to the claims underlying the second, third, and sixth through tenth causes of action, plaintiff correctly argues that defendant did not demonstrate that it had appropriately reduced the claims in accordance with the workers’ compensation Ground Rules (see Sama Physical Therapy, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 53 Misc 3d 129[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51359[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second, third, and sixth through eighth causes of action are denied, and the findings, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), on the ninth and tenth causes of action are vacated.

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

[*1]

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Stefan Belinfanti and David M. Gottlieb of counsel), for appellants.

McCormack & Mattei, P.C., Garden City, NY (John E. McCormack, Kevin A. Mattei, and Nicole Holler of counsel), for respondents.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs are not obligated to pay any past, pending, or future claims for no-fault benefits submitted to them by the defendants, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bruno, J.), entered January 28, 2016, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint is denied.

The plaintiffs, which issue automobile insurance policies that include coverage under the No-Fault Automobile Insurance Law (see Insurance Law § 5101 et seq.), commenced this action against the defendants, five professional medical service corporations. The complaint sought, inter alia, a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs are not obligated to pay any past, pending, or future claims for no-fault benefits submitted to them by the defendants on the basis that the defendants were fraudulently incorporated in the names of licensed medical professionals, while in fact they were owned, operated, and controlled by Andrey Anikeyev, a nonphysician. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the defendants appeal.

“Insurance Law § 5102 et seq. requires no-fault carriers to reimburse patients (or, as in this case, their medical provider assignees) for ‘basic economic loss’ ” (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 320 [2005]). However, “[a] provider of health care services is not eligible for reimbursement under section 5102 (a) (1) of the Insurance Law if the provider fails to meet any applicable New York State or local licensing requirement necessary to perform such service in New York” (11 NYCRR 65-3.16 [a] [12]). “State law mandates that professional service corporations be owned and controlled only by licensed professionals” (One Beacon Ins. Group, LLC v Midland Med. Care, P.C., 54 AD3d 738, 740 [2008]; see Business Corporation Law §§ 1503 [a]; 1507, 1508). Thus, an insurance carrier may withhold payment for medical services provided by a professional corporation which has been “fraudulently incorporated” to allow nonphysicians to share in its ownership and control (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d at 319, 321; see Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 150 AD3d 192, 194 [2017]; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Raia Med. Health, P.C., 140 AD3d 1029, 1030-1032 [2016]; One Beacon Ins. Group, LLC v Midland Med. Care, P.C., 54 [*2]AD3d at 739-740).

Here, the plaintiffs failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the defendants were fraudulently incorporated in this manner. In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted nothing more than Anikeyev’s plea of guilty to a federal court Information that charged him generally with mail and health care fraud, and charged that substantial funds held in the defendants’ accounts were subject to forfeiture. The Information does not describe the manner in which the fraud was committed or how the funds came to be held in the defendants’ accounts. Thus, this evidence did not demonstrate, prima facie, that Anikeyev exercised dominion and control over the defendants and their assets and shared the risks, expenses, and interest in their profits and losses, or that he had a significant role in the guidance, management, and direction of their business (see Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 150 AD3d at 201). Moreover, even assuming, as the plaintiffs do, that the presence of the forfeited funds in the defendants’ bank accounts demonstrated some level of control by Anikeyev over the bank accounts, such control could not, on its own, support a finding that he owned and controlled the defendants (id. at 202).

Since the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court should have denied their motion for summary judgment without regard to the sufficiency of the defendants’ opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendants’ remaining contentions. Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Iannacci, JJ., concur.

Decided on November 3, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., MICHAEL L. PESCE, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2015-2893 Q C

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O’Connor, J.), entered October 23, 2015. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees.”

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees” is deemed an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CCA 1702 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is modified by vacating so much thereof as, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees”; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied its motion, granted defendant’s cross motion, and, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees.”

For the reasons stated in Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs.; Lyonel F. Paul, M.D., as Assignee of Obunike, Norbert Ebere v Geico Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op ____ [appeal No. 2015—2806 Q C], decided herewith), the order is modified by vacating so much thereof as, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees.”

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

Decided on November 3, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., MICHAEL L. PESCE, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2015-2887 Q C

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O’Connor, J.), entered October 23, 2015. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees.”

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees” is deemed an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CCA 1702 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is modified by vacating so much thereof as, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees”; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied its motion, granted defendant’s cross motion, and, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees.”

For the reasons stated in Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs.; Lyonel F. Paul, M.D., as Assignee of Obunike, Norbert Ebere v Geico Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op ____ [appeal No. 2015—2806 Q C], decided herewith), the order is modified by vacating so much thereof as, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees.”

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

Decided on November 3, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., MICHAEL L. PESCE, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2015-2812 Q C

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O’Connor, J.), entered October 28, 2015. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $500 in “fees.”

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $500 in “fees” is deemed an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CCA 1702 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is modified by vacating so much thereof as, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $500 in “fees”; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied its motion, granted defendant’s cross motion, and, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $500 in “fees.”

For the reasons stated in Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs.; Lyonel F. Paul, M.D., as Assignee of Obunike, Norbert Ebere v Geico Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op ____ [appeal No. 2015—2806 Q C], decided herewith), the order is modified by vacating so much thereof as, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $500 in “fees.”

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

Decided on November 3, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., MICHAEL L. PESCE, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2015-2806 Q C

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O’Connor, J.), entered October 23, 2015. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees.”

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees” is deemed an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CCA 1702 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is modified by vacating so much thereof as, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees”; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without 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 plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied its motion, granted defendant’s cross motion, and, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees.”

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim form had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate “as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider] . [*2]. . that the provider failed to appear and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claims” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; see Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, plaintiff has not provided any basis to disturb the Civil Court’s granting of defendant’s cross motion.

However, a court’s sua sponte award of costs to, or imposition of sanctions against, a party or an attorney may be made only “after a reasonable opportunity to be heard” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [d]; see Hester v Hester, 121 AD3d 645 [2014]; Matter of Ariola v Delaura, 51 AD3d 1389 [2008]; Hines v RAP Realty Corp., 254 AD2d 330, 331 [1998]; see also Deeb v Tougher Indus., 216 AD2d 667, 668 [1995]).^[FN1] As the Civil Court failed to provide such an opportunity, so much of the order as, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees” is vacated (see Hester v Hester, 121 AD3d 645).

Accordingly, the order is modified by vacating so much thereof as, sua sponte, awarded defense counsel $250 in “fees.”

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

Footnotes

Footnote 1:It is unlikely that the Civil Court intended to award motion costs, since the court is limited to awarding an amount not in excess of $50 (see CCA 1906 [a]) and since such an award is generally made to a party in the litigation and not to counsel.

Decided on November 3, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHELLE WESTON, J.P., MICHAEL L. PESCE, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2015-2504 K C

Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (David Landfair, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Printz & Goldstein (Lawrence J. Chanice, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered October 15, 2015. The order granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment of the same court entered on December 5, 2014 upon defendant’s purported failure to appear or answer the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action on June 27, 2014 to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Defendant was served with the complaint on July 10, 2014, and plaintiff filed proof of service of the complaint on August 14, 2014. Plaintiff subsequently applied to the clerk for a default judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3215 (a), and a default judgment was entered on December 5, 2014.

On January 14, 2015, defendant moved to vacate the default judgment. In a supporting affirmation, defense counsel asserted that his firm had served an answer on plaintiff’s attorney on August 5, 2014 and that it had filed the answer with the court on August 15, 2014. Defense counsel annexed a copy of the answer with a date stamp from the court, indicating that the answer had been timely filed with the clerk of the court on August 15, 2014. In addition, counsel referred to the annexed affidavit of service of the answer as well as an affidavit of the firm’s mail clerk, both indicating that, on August 5, 2014, the mail clerk had mailed the answer in accordance with the firm’s mailing practices and procedures. Plaintiff’s counsel, in opposition to the motion, stated that the answer had not been received by his office. By order entered October 15, 2015, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.

A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering or appearing based on excusable default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]). “Whether there is a reasonable excuse for a default is a discretionary, sui generis determination to be made by the court based on all relevant [*2]factors, including the extent of the delay, whether there has been prejudice to the opposing party, whether there has been willfulness, and the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” (Harcztark v Drive Variety, Inc., 21 AD3d 876, 876-877 [2005]).

We need not decide whether defendant’s showing of its law firm’s mailing practices and procedures was sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that it had timely served its answer upon plaintiff, since even if it wasn’t a sufficient showing, defendant’s belief that it had mailed the answer in accordance with its law firm’s standard mailing procedures was sufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse for its default, if any. Moreover, defendant demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action. In light of the foregoing, and considering the public policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits, defendant’s lack of willfulness, and the absence of a showing of prejudice, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Decided on November 3, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ
2015-160 Q C

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for appellant. Mandell & Santora, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered December 8, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial and to strike the notice of trial.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial and to strike the notice of trial are granted, and the examination shall be held within 60 days of the date of this decision and order, at such time and place to be specified in a written notice by defendant of not less than 10 days, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree upon.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court denied the branches of a motion by defendant seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial and to strike the notice of trial.

For the reasons stated in S.J. Pahng, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Jin Hee Ma v AutoOne Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-2842 Q C], decided herewith), the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial should have been granted; therefore, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to strike the notice of trial should also have been granted.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branches of defendant’s motion seeking to compel plaintiff to appear for an examination before trial and to strike the notice of trial are granted.

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