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
2014-2165 K 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, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered July 11, 2014. 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 plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath.

For the reasons stated in Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Silface, Gala v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-2172 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA 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
2014-2141 K 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, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered July 10, 2014. 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 plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath.

For the reasons stated in Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Silface, Gala v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-2172 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA 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
2014-2127 K C

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. McDonnell & Adels, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered July 17, 2014. 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 plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath.

For the reasons stated in Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Silface, Gala v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2014-2172 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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

Decided on October 27, 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
NO. 2015-270 K C

Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. (Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C. (Maria Josovich, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered December 10, 2014, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered January 13, 2016 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the December 10, 2014 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,076.64.

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

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant 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. The appeal is deemed from a judgment entered January 13, 2016 which awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,076.64 (see CPLR 5501 [c]).

Contrary to its arguments on appeal, defendant did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it had not received all requested verification and, therefore, it did not demonstrate that this action is premature. Defendant’s papers do not make any showing that the specific verification at issue, an affidavit of plaintiff’s assignor, had ever been requested from plaintiff.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Decided on October 27, 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
NO. 2014-2770 Q C

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Peter C. Merani, P.C. (Eric M. Wahrburg, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered November 6, 2014. 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 defendant had not issued an insurance policy covering the subject loss and, thus, that plaintiff had sued the wrong insurer.

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to establish, prima facie, that defendant had not issued a policy covering the subject loss (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 136[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51240[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or lack merit.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

Decided on October 27, 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
NO. 2014-2674 K C

Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Irena Golodkeyer, 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, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered September 15, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant’s answer and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands.

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. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike defendant’s answer and to compel defendant to respond to discovery demands. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court granting defendant’s motion and denying plaintiff’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Professional Health Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (51 Misc 3d 143[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50698[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]), the order is affirmed.

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

Decided on October 27, 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
NO. 2014-2671 K C

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of James F. Sullivan, P.C. (James F. Sullivan, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered September 11, 2014. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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.

Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that the affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its motion did not sufficiently set forth a standard office practice or procedure that would ensure that defendant’s denial of claim forms had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Thus, defendant did not demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Decided on October 27, 2017

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

Decided on October 27, 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
NO. 2014-2529 Q C

Gialleonardo, Frankini & Harms (Doris Rinck, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Emilia I. Rutigliano, P.C. (Marina Josovich, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered May 14, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first two causes of action and denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order as granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first two causes of action and denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, the Civil Court properly granted the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first two causes of action and denied the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action on the ground that the first independent medical examination had not been scheduled to be held within 30 days of defendant’s receipt of the claims underlying those causes of action, as required by 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (d) (see W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 152[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51707[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; see also O & M Med., P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co., 47 Misc 3d 134[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50476[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

Decided on October 27, 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
NO. 2014-2497 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 (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered September 3, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover on claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811, granted the branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on so much of the complaint as sought to recover $80 on a claim for a service billed under CPT code 99203 only to the extent of awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $54.74 thereon, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover on the claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811, and so much of the complaint as sought to recover the additional sum of $25.26 on the claim for a service billed under CPT code 99203.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, 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 fully paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule. By order entered September 3, 2014, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion to the extent of awarding it $54.74 on its $80 claim for a service billed under CPT code 99203, based upon a workers’ compensation fee schedule reduction, denied the remainder of plaintiff’s motion, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking to dismiss the remainder of the complaint, which sought to recover for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811, and so much of the complaint as sought to recover the additional $25.26 on the claim for a service billed under CPT code 99203. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that its motion should have been granted in its entirety and that defendant’s cross motion should have been denied in its entirety.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its cross [*2]motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim forms had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant further demonstrated that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Similarly, there is no merit to plaintiff’s argument that the Civil Court improperly reduced the sum due for the service billed under CPT code 99203 (see id.).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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