The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Goldstein, Flecker & Hopkins (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Odessa Kennedy, J.), entered September 12, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of those claims.

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, arguing that it had properly used the workers’ compensation fee schedule applicable to chiropractors who render the same services as acupuncturists to reimburse plaintiff for the acupuncture services plaintiff had rendered. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Civil Court denied the branches of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment upon so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of claims for services, rendered in 2009, billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811, and granted the branches of defendant’s cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of those claims.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim forms had been timely [*2]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 at issue 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]). Consequently, defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to the services at issue.

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

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Goldstein, Flecker & Hopkins (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered August 9, 2018. 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, arguing that it had properly used the workers’ compensation fee schedule applicable to chiropractors who render the same services as acupuncturists to reimburse plaintiff for the acupuncture services plaintiff had rendered. The Civil Court denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion.

For the reasons stated in Flushing Traditional Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Thomas, Latecia v GEICO Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2018-2154 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered September 5, 2018. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first 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 granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

For the reasons stated in NL Quality Med., P.C., as Assignee of Munno, Daniel v GEICO Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2018-2283 K C], decided herewith), the order is modified by providing that the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action is denied.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, P.C. (Timothy Bishop of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered August 10, 2018. 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 contention on appeal, the affidavit executed by defendant’s no-fault supervisor and the contemporaneous affidavits executed by defendant’s mailing officer were sufficient to establish the proper mailing of the denial of claim forms (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Maureen Knodel of counsel), for appellant. Kopelevich & Feldsherova, P.C. (David Landfair of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sharon Bourne-Clarke, J.), entered August 14, 2018. 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 appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying defendant’s motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs) and examinations under oath (EUOs).

Defendant established that initial and follow-up letters scheduling IMEs had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]); that plaintiff’s assignor failed to appear on the scheduled dates (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]); and that the claims had been timely denied on that ground (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Greenway Med. Supply Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co., 58 Misc 3d 131[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51765[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]). As plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to defendant’s motion (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [h]), defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and we need not reach defendant’s contention regarding plaintiff’s assignor’s failure to appear for duly scheduled EUOs.

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

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Daniel J. Tucker (Daniel Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered August 7, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services rendered to Love Olatunjiojo, Cathy Gaymon, Delia Morales, Antoinette Affoon, and Oscar Collaguazo Salinas.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. By order entered August 7, 2018, the Civil Court granted the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services rendered to Love Olatunjiojo, Cathy Gaymon, Delia Morales, Antoinette Affoon, and Oscar Collaguazo Salinas.

Plaintiff did not submit any papers in opposition to defendant’s motion giving rise to the August 7, 2018 order (see CPLR 2219 [a]; Matter of Dondi, 63 NY2d 331, 339 [1984]), and the order does not recite the substance of plaintiff’s arguments, if any, made at oral argument. In these circumstances, the order, insofar as appealed from, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see Benitez v Olson, 29 AD3d 503 [2006]; Viggiani v Grodotzke, 306 AD2d 273 [2003]; see also M & C Bros., Inc. v Torum, 75 AD3d 869 [2010]; cf. Matter of 144 Stuyvesant, LLC v Goncalves, 119 AD3d 695 [2014]). Plaintiff’s remedy, if it be so advised, is to move in the Civil Court to vacate the order.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, P.C. (Timothy Bishop of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lorna J. McAllister, J.), entered August 3, 2018. 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 its motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the affidavits by an employee of Media Referral, Inc., which had been retained by defendant to schedule independent medical examinations (IMEs), which affidavits were executed the same date the IME scheduling letters were mailed, sufficiently established that the IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Defendant also submitted an affidavit from the medical provider who was to perform the IMEs, which sufficiently established 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 the 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). As plaintiff’s remaining contentions lack merit, 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.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Aloy O. Ibuzor (Gregory W. Broido of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Rosemarie Montalbano, J.), entered June 21, 2018. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

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 and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions on appeal, the record was sufficient to establish the proper mailing of the examination under oath scheduling letters to plaintiff’s assignor and the denial of claim forms to plaintiff (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.