|Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs.; Lyonel F. Paul, M.D. v GEICO Ins. Co.|
|2018 NY Slip Op 51653(U) [61 Misc 3d 143(A)]|
|Decided on November 16, 2018|
|Appellate Term, Second Department|
|Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.|
|This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.|
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Larry Love, J.), entered April 6, 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 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 cross 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 ) 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 ). Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v GEICO Ins. Co., 59 Misc 3d 152[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50864[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).
Plaintiff's remaining contention with respect to defendant's cross motion is not properly before this court, as this argument is being raised for the first time on appeal (see Joe v Upper Room Ministries, Inc., 88 AD3d 963 ; Gulf Ins. Co. v Kanen, 13 AD3d 579 ), and we decline to consider it. 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.