The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Shana A. Kleinman, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 31, 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 on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, defendant’s proof was sufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that it had properly mailed the initial and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that it had not received the requested verification, and, thus, that the action is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). However, as plaintiff further argues, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion, was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the action is premature (see Compas Med., P.C. v [*2]Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 152[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Mitchell L. Kaufman, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 30, 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 the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the sixth cause of action 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 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath.

Plaintiff correctly argues that defendant failed to establish that it had timely denied the claim underlying the sixth cause of action. Thus, the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing that cause of action should have been denied. However, plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment on this cause of action, as plaintiff failed to establish that the claim 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 this 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], [*2]2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).

The order is affirmed as to the remaining causes of action for the reason stated in Laga, as Assignee of Noel, Jocelyn v American Commerce Ins. Co. (— Misc 3d &mdash, 2017 NY Slip Op — [appeal No. 2014-2015 Q C], decided herewith).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the sixth cause of action is denied.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Gullo & Associates, LLP (Cristina Corollo, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), entered June 16, 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 on the ground that the action was premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, defendant’s proof was sufficient to demonstrate that it had properly mailed the initial and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that it had not received the requested verification, and, thus, that the action is premature (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]). However, as plaintiff further argues, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the action is premature (see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., [*2]49 Misc 3d 152[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51776[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]).

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

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Office of Laurie DiPreta (Rhonda H. Barry, Esq.), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Sally E. Unger, J.), entered July 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 on the ground that defendant had timely and properly denied the claim at issue based upon plaintiff’s failure to provide requested verification within 120 days of the initial verification request (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [o]). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it had not received the requested verification. However, as plaintiff further argues, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant’s motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). In light of the foregoing, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff provided the requested verification.

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

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Mitchell L. Kaufman, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered July 1, 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 (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, defendant’s proof sufficiently established proper mailing of the denials and verification requests at issue (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 scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Plaintiff’s remaining argument is improperly raised for the first time on appeal and, in any event, lacks merit.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Mitchell L. Kaufman, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (William A. Viscovich, J.), entered July 1, 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 Laga, as Assignee of Mondestin, Liliane v Lancer Ins. Co. (— Misc 3d &mdash, 2017 NY Slip Op — [appeal No. 2014-1811 Q C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. De Martini & Yi, LLP (Arthur J. DeMartini, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered June 9, 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’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal, defendant properly tolled its time to pay or deny the claim at issue through its initial and follow-up EUO scheduling letters (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b]; 65-3.6 [b]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant. Law Offices of Bryan M. Rothenberg (Sharon A. Brennan, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered June 9, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action and, upon denying the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established proper mailing of the denial of the claim underlying that cause 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 moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of medical necessity. Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action and, upon denying the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established proper mailing of the denial of claim form underlying that cause of action.

Contrary to plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to establish that the denial of claim forms at issue had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

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

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