Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kathy J. King, J.), entered August 12, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed without 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 on the ground of lack of medical necessity. In opposition to defendant's cross motion, plaintiff argued that the affidavits submitted by defendant were insufficient to prove the timely mailing of the denial of claim form. The Civil Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. As limited by its brief, plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the affidavits submitted by defendant were sufficient to establish that defendant's denial of claim form, which denied plaintiff's claim on the ground of lack of medical necessity, was timely mailed in accordance with defendant's standard office practice and procedure (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Plaintiff's remaining contentions were improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

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

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 29, 2010