Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Stefan Belinfanti 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 May 31, 2016. 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 moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). By order entered May 31, 2016, the Civil Court denied the motion, but found, in effect pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that defendant had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim forms, as well as plaintiff’s failure to appear for the EUOs. The Civil Court further found that the only remaining issues for trial were plaintiff’s prima facie case and whether plaintiff failed to appear for the EUOs “due to a discrepancy as to the person stated in the EUO request letters to report to at the EUO, and the person signing the affirmation alleging he was assigned and stating that plaintiff failed to appear.” Defendant appeals, contending that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

For the reasons stated in Oleg’s Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Malaysia Mullervy v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-575 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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 (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered October 27, 2016. 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 had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the EUO scheduling letters and denial of claim form had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) and to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate “as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider] . . . that the provider twice failed to appear and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[]” (Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; see Parisien v Metlife Auto & Home, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & [*2]13th Jud Dists 2017]; Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, plaintiff has not provided any basis to disturb the Civil Court’s order.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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 (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered September 13, 2016. 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 Active Care Med. Supply Corp., as Assignee of Wilson, Andrae v American Tr. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-2883 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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 (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered September 12, 2016. 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 Active Care Med. Supply Corp., as Assignee of Wilson, Andrae v American Tr. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-2883 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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 (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered October 27, 2016. 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.

For the reasons stated in Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Serv.; Lyonel F. Paul, M.D., as Assignee of Mathurin, Rebecca v GEICO Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-2886 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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 (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered September 12, 2016. 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 Active Care Med. Supply Corp., as Assignee of Wilson, Andrae v American Tr. Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-2883 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

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

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Peter C. Merani, P.C. (Eric M. Wahrburg 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 August 23, 2016. 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 Metro Psychological Servs., P.C., as Assignee of Adams Kenneth v Allstate Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2016-2907 K C], decided herewith), the order is modified by providing that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. De Martini & Yi, LLP (Bryan Visnius of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Theresa M. Ciccotto, J.), entered August 1, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action is denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as granted the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action.

Plaintiff correctly argues that the affidavit it submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the requested verification had been mailed to, and received by, defendant (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]), and thus that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the verification had been provided. In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue (see generally Nyack Hosp. v General Motors Acceptance Corp., 8 NY3d 294 [2007]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action is denied.