| Beacon Acupuncture, P.C. v Hertz Claim Mgt. |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 52059(U) [66 Misc 3d 130(A)] |
| Decided on December 13, 2019 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Robyn M. Brilliant, P.C. (Robyn M. Brilliant of counsel), for appellant. Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered January 22, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for services rendered from September 28, 2015 through February 3, 2016 are granted; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant's cross motion which had sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
As to the claims for services rendered from September 28, 2015 through February 3, 2016, defendant established that initial and follow-up letters scheduling an EUO had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]); that plaintiff had failed to appear on either date (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]); and that the claims had been timely denied on that ground (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; ARCO Med. NY, P.C. v Lancer Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52382[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]).
As to the remaining claims, defendant stated that the first EUO scheduling letter had been sent more than 30 days after defendant had received those claims; therefore, the request was a nullity with respect 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]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for services rendered from September 28, 2015 through February 3, 2016 are granted.
PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.