Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered December 5, 2013. 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 independent medical examinations (IMEs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments on appeal, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the IME scheduling letters and the denial of claim form at issue had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), and that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Plaintiff’s argument, that the address used on the IME scheduling letters improperly included an apartment number that does not appear on plaintiff’s claim forms, will not be considered, as it is being raised for the first time on appeal (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 [2011]; Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 [2004]; Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C. v Elrac, Inc., 48 Misc 3d 139[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51219[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). In any event, the affidavit of defendant’s litigation examiner stated that defendant used the address set forth on the assignor’s application for no-fault benefits.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered September 19, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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 plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court denied both motions, but, in effect, limited the issue for trial, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), to whether the EUO scheduling letters had been properly mailed. As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment.

The proof submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion failed to establish a practice and procedure sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the EUO scheduling letters had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; J.M. Chiropractic Servs., PLLC v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 36 Misc 3d 135[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51348[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]).

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

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Barry A. Schwartz, J.), entered October 16, 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.

For the reasons stated in Metro Health Prods., Inc. as Assignee of Omar Boyce, v American Tr. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op ___ [appeal No. 2013-2498 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered July 17, 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.

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 examination under oath (EUO) scheduling letters had been properly mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), and to demonstrate that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered June 21, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services rendered from October 27, 2008 to April 23, 2009.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services rendered from October 27, 2008 to April 23, 2009 is granted.

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 various grounds, including lack of medical necessity. As to so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services rendered from October 27, 2008 to April 23, 2009, the Civil Court denied both the motion and the cross motion, but limited the issues for trial to the medical necessity of those claims (see CPLR 3212 [g]). As limited by its brief, defendant appeals from so much of the order as denied the branch of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those claims.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted a sworn report of an independent medical examination, which report set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the examiner’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue. Plaintiff failed to oppose defendant’s cross motion. As defendant’s prima facie showing that the services were not medically necessary was unrebutted by plaintiff, and as plaintiff has not challenged the Civil Court’s finding, in effect, that defendant is otherwise entitled to judgment on the claims at issue, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services rendered from October 27, 2008 to April 23, 2009 is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered May 23, 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 as premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

For the reasons stated in Performance Plus Med., P.C., as Assignee of Melanna Luckie v Nationwide Ins. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2013-2766 Q C], decided herewith), the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered April 24, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first through fifth causes of action and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through fifth causes of action are denied; 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 denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the first through fifth causes of action, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action on the ground that they were premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

For the reasons stated in Performance Plus Med., P.C., as Assignee of Melanna Luckie v Nationwide Ins. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2013-2766 Q C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first through fifth causes of action are denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered March 26, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the second through sixth causes of action and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second through sixth causes of action are 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 so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the second through sixth causes of action, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action on the ground that they were premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification.

For the reasons stated in Performance Plus Med., P.C., as Assignee of Melanna Luckie v Nationwide Ins. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2013-2766 Q C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second through sixth causes of action are denied.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.