Law Office of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Janice Rosen of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Damin J. Toell, P.C. (Damin J. Toell 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 January 29, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, 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, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignors had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) and independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court, by order dated January 29, 2016, denied both motions finding, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), that plaintiff had established its prima facie case, that defendant had established that it had timely denied the claims on the grounds that plaintiff's assignors had failed to appear for EUOs and IMEs, and that the only triable issues were whether the EUO and IME scheduling letters had been timely and properly mailed.

Contrary to defendant's contention, defendant failed to establish that the initial and follow-up letters scheduling the EUOs and IMEs had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). As a result, defendant failed to demonstrate that the EUOs and IMEs had been properly scheduled and, thus, that plaintiff's assignors had failed to appear at duly scheduled EUOs and IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006]). Consequently, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

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