The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Picciano & Scahill, P.C. (David J. Tetlak of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Joy F. Campanelli, J.), entered March 1, 2017. 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 on the ground that the amounts plaintiff sought to recover were in excess of the workers’ compensation fee schedule and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

For the reasons stated in BQE Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Carrington, Earnel v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-905 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Picciano & Scahill, P.C. (David J. Tetlak of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered February 24, 2017. 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 on the ground that the amounts plaintiff sought to recover were in excess of the workers’ compensation fee schedule and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

The proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim forms at issue had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Plaintiff argues that defendant failed to establish that defendant’s fee reductions, which had been done in accordance with the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors, were proper. However, this court has held, “as a matter of law, that an insurer may use the workers’ compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors to determine the amount which a licensed acupuncturist is entitled to receive for such acupuncture services” (Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23, 24 [App [*2]Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered December 15, 2016. 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 the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims.

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 the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims 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. By order entered December 15, 2016, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, the Civil Court denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking dismissal of so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims.

For the reasons stated in Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Boodoo, Anselm Kevin v GEICO Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-635 K C], decided herewith), 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 the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims is granted.

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

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered December 14, 2016. 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 the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims.

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 the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims 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. By order entered December 14, 2016, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, the Civil Court denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking dismissal of so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims.

For the reasons stated in Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Boodoo, Anselm Kevin v GEICO Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-635 K C], decided herewith), 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 the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims is granted.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Office of Daniel J. Tucker, for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered January 31, 2017. 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 on the ground that plaintiff’s assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions on appeal, defendant established that the EUO scheduling letters had been timely 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 duly scheduled EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). To the extent plaintiff challenges the address to which the EUO scheduling letters were mailed, a review of the record shows that defendant mailed the EUO scheduling letters to the address provided by plaintiff in the bills it sent to defendant.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered December 15, 2016. 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 the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims.

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 the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims 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. By order entered December 15, 2016, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, the Civil Court denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking dismissal of so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims.

For the reasons stated in Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Boodoo, Anselm Kevin v GEICO Ins. Co. (__ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-635 K C], decided herewith), 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 the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims is granted.

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

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

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered December 15, 2016. 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 the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims.

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 the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims 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 the ground that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services at issue, which had been rendered prior to April 1, 2013. By order entered December 15, 2016, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, the Civil Court denied the branch of defendant’s cross motion seeking dismissal of so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims.

Defendant demonstrated that it had timely denied the claims at issue (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and that it had properly used the workers’ compensation fee schedule to determine the amount which plaintiff was entitled to receive for the services in question (see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App [*2]Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). As plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s showing,

Accordingly, 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 the unpaid portion of plaintiff’s claims is granted.

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