The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Rubin & Nazarian (Thomas Wolf of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), dated July 27, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon, in effect, renewal, adhered to a prior determination in an order of that court entered December 11, 2014 which, among other things, conditionally granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order dated July 27, 2015, 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. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that plaintiff’s assignor had been injured during the course of employment. By order entered December 11, 2014, the Civil Court granted defendant’s cross motion to the extent of holding the case in abeyance for 90 days pending the filing of an application to the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board). The court further stated that if plaintiff failed to file proof of such application with the court, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint shall be granted.

Plaintiff subsequently moved for leave to renew and, upon renewal, for summary judgment and to deny defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant opposed plaintiff’s motion, noting that plaintiff had failed to comply with the Civil [*2]Court’s prior order in that plaintiff did not file an application to the Board and that, while plaintiff had submitted a form to the Board entitled “Claimant’s Authorization to Disclose Workers’ Compensation Records,” not only did this submission fail to comply with the Civil Court’s order, it was also made over 100 days after the Civil Court’s order. By order dated July 27, 2015, the Civil Court, upon, in effect, renewal, adhered to its prior determination.

Since plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had complied with the Civil Court’s order and made a proper application to determine the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law (see LMK Psychological Serv., P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co., 64 AD3d 752 [2009]), the order dated July 27, 2015, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

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

Rivkin Radler, LLP (Cheryl F. Korman and Stuart M. Bodoff 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 (Katherine A. Levine, J.), entered March 27, 2015. 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 March 27, 2015, 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 the 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 “[defendant’s] procedure for receipt of the bills in Georgia and processing and transmittal to and in [defendant’s] Ballston Spa [office].” Defendant appeals, contending that it was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

To establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing a complaint on the ground that a provider had failed to appear for an EUO, an insurer must demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it had twice duly demanded an EUO from the provider, that the provider had [*2]twice failed to appear, and that the insurer had issued a timely denial of the claims (see Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon, 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014]; Integrative Pain Medicine, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 53 Misc 3d 140[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51520[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]). Plaintiff challenges the Civil Court’s implicit CPLR 3212 (g) findings in favor of defendant. However, a review of the record establishes that the Civil Court correctly determined that defendant had established the timely and proper mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and the denial of claim forms, as well as plaintiff’s failure to appear for the EUOs. As a result, the Civil Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We note that defendant’s transmittal of the claims from one of its offices to another of its offices does not raise a triable issue of fact.

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

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

Decided on May 18, 2018

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP (Mitchell L. Kaufman and Nathan Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered August 21, 2015. 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 on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, as plaintiff failed to establish that its claims had not been timely denied (see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 25 NY3d 498 [2015]), or that defendant had issued timely denial of claim forms that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 78 AD3d 1168 [2010]; Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co., 32 Misc 3d 128[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

However, plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that defendant failed to demonstrate that it [*2]was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on plaintiff’s failure to appear for EUOs, as the initial EUO request had been sent more than 30 days after defendant had received the claims at issue and, therefore, the requests were nullities as to those claims (see Neptune Med. Care, P.C. v Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., 48 Misc 3d 139[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51220[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; O & M Med., P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co., 47 Misc 3d 134[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50476[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied.

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

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

Decided on May 18, 2018

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Decided on May 18, 2018

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant. Gallo, Vitucci & Klar (Yolanda L. Ayala and Richard E. Weber, Jr. of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard Montelione, J.), dated July 28, 2016. 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, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the automobile insurance policy in question had been issued in Florida, and that Florida law applied, pursuant to which there was a lack of coverage due to the valid rescission of the automobile insurance policy. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court dated July 28, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion.

It is undisputed that the vehicle in question was insured by defendant under a Florida automobile insurance policy. According to an affidavit submitted by an employee of defendant’s managing general agent, an investigation conducted after the accident revealed that, at the time the policyholder had applied for automobile insurance, she did not reside at the Florida address listed on her insurance application, and that the insured vehicle was not being garaged in Florida for the period stated on the application. Consequently, defendant had rescinded the policy ab initio, pursuant to Florida Statutes Annotated, title 37, § 627.409, which permits the retroactive rescission of an insurance policy if there has been a material misrepresentation in the application for insurance.

While the substantive law (see e.g. St. Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 53 Misc 3d 59 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]) of Florida applies, New York’s procedural laws control (see St. Chiropractic, P.C., 53 Misc 3d at 61). In order to show that it [*2]properly rescinded a motor vehicle insurance policy ab initio, an insurer must demonstrate that it had given notice of the rescission to the insured and that it had returned or tendered all premiums paid, in accordance with Florida law, all in a reasonable time after the discovery of the grounds for avoiding the policy (see Leonardo v State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 675 So 2d 176, 179 [Fla Dist Ct App, 4th Dist 1996]; see also United Auto. Ins. Co. v Salgado, 22 So 3d 594, 600-601 [Fla Dist Ct App, 3d Dist 2009]). As defendant’s motion papers failed to establish “actual mailing or … a standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” (Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679, 680 [2001]; see also St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]) demonstrating that the notice of rescission and the refund check had been mailed to the insured, defendant failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment (see W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Infinity Prop. & Cas. Co., 36 Misc 3d 4, 6-7 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012], citing Leonardo, 675 So 2d 176, 179).

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

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

Headley v New York City Tr. Auth., 100 AD3d 700, 701 [2012]; see Matter of Oak Tree Realty Co., LLC v Board of Assessors, 71 AD3d 1027 [2010]; Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co., 61 AD3d 13 [2009]; Matter of Khatibi v Weill, 8 AD3d 485 [2004]; Brandes Meat Corp. v Cromer, 146 AD2d 666, 667 [1989]).

Consequently, in light of the Supreme Court’s orders and declaratory judgment, of which we take judicial notice, we find that the Civil Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel (see EBM Med. Health Care, P.C. v Republic W. Ins., 38 Misc 3d 1, 3 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]), as any judgment in favor of plaintiff in the present action would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the judgment in the declaratory judgment action (see Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 NY 304, 306-307 [1929]; Flushing Traditional Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co., 42 Misc 3d 133[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50052[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]), and, upon a search of the record, we find that defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the Civil Court’s order is affirmed and, upon a search of the record, defendant is awarded reverse summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

Decided on April 13, 2018

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS