Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered February 21, 2012. The order denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

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 defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion for summary judgment established that defendant had timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]) the denial of claim forms at issue, which denied the claims on the ground of lack of medical necessity. Defendant also annexed to its motion papers two affirmed peer review reports, each of which set forth a factual basis and medical rationale for the doctor’s determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies at issue. Plaintiff did not rebut defendant’s prima facie showing. Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc 3d 128[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 131[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered October 11, 2011. 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 moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Civil Court held that plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie showing and, on that basis, it granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, plaintiff argues that its motion for summary judgment should have been granted and that, in any event, defendant’s cross motion should not have been granted.

Plaintiff’s moving papers failed to establish either that defendant had failed to pay or deny the claim within the requisite 30-day period (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 114 AD3d 33 [2013]), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]). Thus, plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment, and its motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Defendant denied plaintiff’s claims on three grounds: some, based on a lack of medical necessity; some, for exceeding the amount permitted by the workers’ compensation fee schedule; and some, because the claims were allegedly untimely as they had been submitted more than 45 days after the services had been rendered. As to the claims denied on the ground of a lack of medical necessity, the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s treating doctor was sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact. As to the claims which were denied based upon the workers’ compensation fee schedule or because they were untimely, defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing these claims. As a result, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have [*2]been denied (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Rudolph E. Greco, Jr., J.), entered September 7, 2011. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for entry of a default judgment and granted defendant’s unopposed cross motion to, among other things, vacate a prior order of the same court (Genine D. Edwards, J.) entered December 14, 2010, which had granted, on default, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and, implicitly, upon such vacatur, to deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as was taken from the portion of the order that granted defendant’s unopposed cross motion is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order, insofar as reviewed, 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 (Rudolph E. Greco, Jr., J.) entered September 7, 2011, which denied plaintiff’s motion for entry of a default judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion to, among other things, vacate a prior order of the same court (Genine D. Edwards, J.) entered December 14, 2010, which had granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on default, and, implicitly, upon such vacatur, to deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. So much of the appeal as was taken from the portion of the order that granted defendant’s cross motion is dismissed, as plaintiff did not oppose defendant’s cross motion, and no appeal lies from an order which was entered upon the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511; Sanchez v Village of Ossining, 271 AD2d 674 [2000]; Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co. v Fireman’s Fund Am. Ins. Co., 117 AD2d 588 [1986]). The remainder of the order is affirmed, as, in light of the vacatur of the order entered December 14, 2010, plaintiff’s motion for the entry of a default judgment pursuant to that order was properly denied.

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Reginald A. Boddie, J.), entered July 19, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims which had been denied based upon plaintiffs’ assignor’s failure to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations, and granted the branch of plaintiffs’ cross motion seeking summary judgment upon that portion of the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims which had been denied based upon plaintiffs’ assignor’s failure to appear for scheduled independent medical examinations is granted, and the branch of plaintiffs’ cross motion seeking summary judgment upon that portion of the complaint is denied.

In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims which defendant had denied on the ground that plaintiffs’ assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examination (IMEs). Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment upon that portion of the complaint. The Civil Court denied the stated branch of defendant’s motion and granted the stated branch of plaintiffs’ cross motion.

In support of the stated branch of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by an employee of the company which had been retained by defendant to schedule IMEs, which affidavit established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed in accordance with that office’s standard mailing practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant also submitted affidavits by the healthcare professionals who were to perform the IMEs, which affidavits established that plaintiffs’ assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Finally, the affidavits submitted by defendant sufficiently [*2]demonstrated that defendant had timely denied the claims at issue (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims which had been denied based upon plaintiffs’ assignor’s failure to appear for scheduled IMEs is granted, and the branch of plaintiffs’ cross motion seeking summary judgment upon that portion of the complaint is denied.

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered May 27, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by an employee of the company which had been retained by defendant to schedule independent medical examinations (IMEs), which affidavit established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed to plaintiff’s assignor in accordance with that office’s standard mailing practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant also submitted, among other things, an affidavit by the chiropractor who was to perform the chiropractic IMEs, which was sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for those duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). In addition, an affidavit executed by defendant’s claims examiner demonstrated that the denial of claim form, which denied plaintiff’s claim based on plaintiff’s assignor’s nonappearance at the IMEs, had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Consequently, defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722; see also Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered September 13, 2012. 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 defendant had not issued an insurance policy covering the accident in question. The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

In support of its cross motion, defendant submitted an affidavit from its no-fault examiner which sufficiently established defendant’s lack of coverage defense (see Great Health Care Chiropractic, P.C. v Omni Indem. Co., 40 Misc 3d 139[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51450[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]; Astoria Quality Med. Supply v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 31 Misc 3d 138[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50743[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Despite plaintiff’s contention to the contrary, defendant was not required to describe in detail the steps which it had taken in searching its records in order to demonstrate that there was no coverage in effect at the time of the accident (see Astoria Quality Med. Supply, 31 Misc 3d 138[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50743[U]; Lenox Hill Radiology v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 28 Misc 3d 141[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51638[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2010]). Consequently, defendant demonstrated that it was not the carrier which covered the accident in question (see also Vincent Med. Servs., P.C. v Omni Indem. Co., 42 Misc 3d 142[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50224[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]) and, thus, the Civil Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered April 16, 2012. The order denied 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 granted.

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 defendant had timely and properly denied the claims at issue based upon plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied the motion, finding that plaintiff had raised a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s assignor had received written notice of the IMEs.

In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by an employee of the company which had been retained by defendant to schedule IMEs, which affidavit established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed in accordance with that office’s standard mailing practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). The affidavit submitted by plaintiff was insufficient to rebut the presumption of receipt (see Top Choice Med., P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 33 Misc 3d 137[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52063[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 6 Misc 3d 131[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50088[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]). Defendant also submitted affidavits by the healthcare professional who was to perform the IMEs, which affidavits established that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Finally, an affidavit executed by defendant’s claims examiner sufficiently described the standard mailing practices and procedures for denial of claim forms (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). In view of the foregoing, and since the appearance of an assignor at a duly scheduled IME is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, [*2]P.C., 35 AD3d at 722), defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.

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

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.