Reported in New York Official Reports at Ave T MPC Corp. v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51563(U))
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
against
Prudential Property and Casualty Ins. Co., Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered September 21, 2010. The judgment, entered pursuant to a July 1, 2010 order of the same court granting defendant’s CPLR 3126 motion, dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the order dated July 1, 2010 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered September 21, 2010 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the parties entered into a stipulation pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to provide defendant with legible copies of the claims at issue or be precluded from offering such evidence at trial. Thereafter, defendant moved, among other things, to compel plaintiff to provide legible copies of the claims. By order entered October 9, 2009 (Lewis L. Douglass, J.H.O.), plaintiff was required to serve defendant with legible copies of the claim forms at issue, or provide defendant with an affidavit from plaintiff setting forth why plaintiff was unable to do so, within 60 days of the date of the order, or be precluded from offering “such evidence” should a judge find the explanation set forth in the affidavit from plaintiff to be insufficient. After plaintiff failed to provide defendant with either legible copies of the claim forms or an affidavit setting forth why plaintiff was unable to provide same, defendant moved, pursuant to CPLR 3126, to preclude plaintiff and to dismiss the complaint, asserting that plaintiff had failed to timely comply with the order; that, as a consequence, plaintiff was precluded from offering any evidence; and that, therefore, plaintiff could not establish its prima facie case. In opposition, a representative of plaintiff explained, in an affidavit, why plaintiff was unable to provide legible copies of the claim forms, without offering any explanation for its failure to comply with the 60-day requirement of the order, or indicating when, or if, plaintiff had previously served that affidavit upon defendant. By order entered July 1, 2010, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion. A judgment was entered pursuant to the order on September 21, 2010.
The order entered October 9, 2009 unambigously provided that plaintiff would be precluded from using the claim forms at issue if plaintiff failed to comply with the stipulation. The record fails to establish that, within the 60-day time period set forth in the stipulation, plaintiff either produced legible copies of the claim forms or provided an affidavit setting forth [*2]why it could not provide legible copies of the claim forms. We note that the affidavit attached to plaintiff’s opposition papers was served upon defendant over six months beyond the time permitted by the order. Consequently, we find no basis to reverse the judgment.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Elliot, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 21, 2016
Reported in New York Official Reports at J.K.M. Med. Care, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 26348)
| J.K.M. Med. Care, P.C. v Interboro Ins. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 26348 [54 Misc 3d 35] |
| Accepted for Miscellaneous Reports Publication |
| Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, February 15, 2017 |
[*1]
| J.K.M. Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of James Stokes, Respondent, v Interboro Insurance Company, Appellant. |
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, 2d, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, October 21, 2016
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Melissa Betancourt, P.C., Brooklyn (Melissa Betancourt of counsel), for respondent.
{**54 Misc 3d at 36} OPINION OF THE COURT
Ordered that the order is modified by vacating so much thereof as denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking the entry of a satisfaction of judgment; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination of that branch of defendant’s motion in accordance with the decision herein.
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 the action was barred by virtue of a November 21, 2011 judgment which had been entered against plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Court, Nassau County. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. By order dated April 23, 2014, the Civil Court (Robin S. Garson, J.) denied defendant’s motion and granted plaintiff’s cross motion, directing plaintiff to enter judgment in the principal sum of $556.78, plus statutory interest and attorney’s fees. In July 2014, plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment in the total sum of $988.34. A judgment was ultimately entered on September 19, 2014 in the sum of $993.34.
In August 2014, prior to the entry of judgment in this action, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as the amount which was due and owing had been satisfied, or, in the alternative, in the event that a judgment had been entered while defendant’s motion was pending, for an order granting it a satisfaction of such entered judgment, pursuant to CPLR “5020 (c),”[FN*] and plaintiff opposed the motion. By order entered April 23, 2015, the Civil Court denied defendant’s{**54 Misc 3d at 37} motion in its entirety on the ground that it was an improper successive motion for summary judgment.
Although defendant’s second motion sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint, defendant sought such relief only in the event that no judgment had been entered while its motion was pending. Since a judgment had been entered on September 19, 2014, defendant’s request for primary relief in the form of summary judgment became academic, and, thus, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking the alternative relief requested, i.e., for an order, pursuant to CPLR 5021 (a) (2), directing the entry of a satisfaction of judgment, became operative. However, in denying defendant’s motion in its entirety, the Civil Court did not consider the merits of the branch of defendant’s motion seeking the alternative relief of the entry of a satisfaction of judgment. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a determination thereof.
Accordingly, the order is modified by vacating so much thereof as denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking the entry of a satisfaction of judgment, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new determination of that branch of defendant’s motion.
Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
Footnote *:In the appellate brief, defendant states that it had made a “scrivener’s error” in misciting the applicable CPLR provision, and had actually sought relief under CPLR 5021 (a) (2).
Reported in New York Official Reports at Tam Med. Supply Corp. v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51533(U))
| TAM Med. Supply Corp. v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 51533(U) [53 Misc 3d 142(A)] |
| Decided on October 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on October 13, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-638 Q C
against
National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered March 4, 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.
For the reasons stated in TAM Med. Supply Corp., as Assignee of Melisa Abdoul v National Liability & Fire Ins. Co. (____ Misc 3d _____, 2016 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2014-635 Q C], decided herewith), 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.
Decision Date: October 13, 2016
Reported in New York Official Reports at Tam Med. Supply Corp. v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51532(U))
| TAM Med. Supply Corp. v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 51532(U) [53 Misc 3d 141(A)] |
| Decided on October 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on October 13, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-635 Q C
against
National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Sally E. Unger, J.), entered March 3, 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.
Contrary to plaintiff’s argument on appeal, defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that plaintiff’s 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 by plaintiff’s owner was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to 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 this action is premature (see Compas Med., P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 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 modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 13, 2016
Reported in New York Official Reports at Renelique v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51530(U))
| Renelique v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 51530(U) [53 Misc 3d 141(A)] |
| Decided on October 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on October 13, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-352 Q C
against
Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered January 13, 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely and properly denied the claim at issue based upon plaintiff’s failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). By order entered January 13, 2014, the Civil Court granted defendant’s motion.
As plaintiff argues, defendant’s moving papers failed to establish that the first EUO scheduling letter defendant sent to plaintiff was timely, as defendant stated that the letter was sent 35 days after defendant had received the claim (see Neptune Med. Care, P.C. v Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., 48 Misc 3d 139[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51220[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; 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]). Consequently, defendant failed to demonstrate that it had properly and timely denied the claim based upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006] [appearance at an EUO is a condition precedent to coverage]).
Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 13, 2016
Reported in New York Official Reports at Renelique v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51528(U))
| Renelique v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 51528(U) [53 Misc 3d 141(A)] |
| Decided on October 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on October 13, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-301 Q C
against
National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered December 11, 2013. 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 moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely and properly denied the claim at issue based upon the assignor’s failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations. The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.
For the reasons stated in Renelique, as Assignee of Rohan Streek v National Liability & Fire Ins. Co. (____ Misc 3d ____, 2016 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2014-20 Q C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 13, 2016
Reported in New York Official Reports at New Way Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51527(U))
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered July 15, 2013, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered December 17, 2013 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the July 15, 2013 order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $3,075.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, so much of the order entered July 15, 2013 as granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is vacated, and plaintiff’s cross motion is denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court entered July 15, 2013 which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. A judgment was subsequently entered pursuant to the order, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $3,075, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 [c]).
Defendant’s motion was properly denied, as defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations. Among other things, the affidavit attesting to the second failure to appear indicates, on its face, that it had been notarized before it was signed (see e.g. 97 NY Jur 2d, Summary Judgment, Etc. § 47 [proof in support of summary judgment must be in evidentiary form]).
However, as defendant argues, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the proof submitted in support of its cross motion 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 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]).
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, so much of the order entered July 15, 2013 as granted plaintiff’s cross motion is vacated, and plaintiff’s cross motion is denied.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 13, 2016
Reported in New York Official Reports at Renelique v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51526(U))
| Renelique v American Tr. Ins. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 51526(U) [53 Misc 3d 141(A)] |
| Decided on October 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on October 13, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-264 Q C
against
American Transit Ins. Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered December 11, 2013. 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.
Plaintiff billed for one unit of CPT code 99244 at $236.94 and one unit of CPT code 20553 at $600. Defendant defended this action on the ground that the fees sought exceeded the amounts permitted for those codes by the workers’ compenCsation fee schedule. While plaintiff argues on appeal that the affidavit executed by defendant’s coding expert “does not discuss anything specific whatsoever regarding [p]laintiff’s claims,” defendant also submitted an affidavit executed by its no-fault examiner, who described how the fees for the services at issue had been calculated by multiplying the appropriate “relative value” by the appropriate “conversion factor.” Plaintiff’s remaining argument with respect to the coding expert’s affidavit and the specific argument made by plaintiff with regard to CPT code 99244 were not raised in the Civil Court, and are therefore not properly before this court.
With respect to plaintiff’s final argument, which involves CPT code 20553, we find that defendant made a prima facie showing that it had used the assigned relative value for that code to calculate the sum to which plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed. While plaintiff submitted a doctor’s affidavit addressing CPT code 20553, the doctor’s conclusion is based upon the unsupported allegation that CPT code 20553 is a “by report” code, meaning that it does not have a relative value. This allegation does not rebut defendant’s proof that CPT code 20553 does have a relative value.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 13, 2016
Reported in New York Official Reports at Integrative Pain Medicine, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51525(U))
| Integrative Pain Medicine, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 51525(U) [53 Misc 3d 141(A)] |
| Decided on October 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on October 13, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-82 K C October 13, 2016
against
Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Steven Z. Mostofsky, J.), entered January 7, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, imposed conditions.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the conditions imposed by the Civil Court are vacated.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on condition that plaintiff’s assignor fail to appear for a new examination under oath (EUO) to be “re-notice[d]” by defendant in accordance with instructions set out in the order. Defendant appeals from so much of the order as imposed those conditions.
Appearance at an EUO is a condition precedent to coverage (see 11 NYCRR 65—1.1; Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596 [2014]; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Upon finding that defendant demonstrated that it had timely and properly denied the claims at issue on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled EUOs, the Civil Court should not have given plaintiff’s assignor an opportunity to cure its failure to act during claims processing (see IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v Stracar Med. Services, P.C., 116 AD3d 1005 [2014]). Under the circumstances, the court should have granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment unconditionally.
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and the conditions imposed by the Civil Court are vacated.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 13, 2016
Reported in New York Official Reports at Renelique v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. (2016 NY Slip Op 51524(U))
| Renelique v National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 51524(U) [53 Misc 3d 141(A)] |
| Decided on October 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on October 13, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2014-20 Q C
against
National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered December 10, 2013. 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 moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely and properly denied the claim at issue based upon the assignor’s failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.
Contrary to plaintiff’s sole argument on appeal with respect to defendant’s cross motion, defendant’s submissions were sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the IME scheduling letters and the denial of claim form had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: October 13, 2016