Freiberg, Peck & Kang, LLP (Yilo J. Kang of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (David M. Gottlieb of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sandra E. Roper, J.), entered May 31, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied defendant's 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, the complaint seeks to recover the principal sum of $1,548.69, plus interest at the rate of two percent per month, plus attorney fees and statutory fees, for two claims, both with dates of service on September 17, 2018. After answering, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that it had paid the claims by check, copies of the front and back of which were annexed to the moving papers. Plaintiff opposed the motion, alleging that he never received the check and that he had submitted an affidavit to defendant attesting that the signature on the check was a forgery. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court (Sandra E. Roper, J.) denied the motions, finding that the sole issue for trial was the "payment and accord defense." Defendant appeals, as limited by the brief, from so much of the order as denied its motion.

To obtain summary judgment, a movant must establish his cause of action or defense sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in his favor (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). On the other hand, to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must show facts sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact (CPLR 3212 [b]).

The proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment established, prima facie, its defense that it had mailed a check in payment of plaintiff's claims and that the check had been endorsed and either deposited into an account or cashed. In [*2]opposition, plaintiff submitted an affidavit of forgery on which he signed his name five times. Based on the apparent differences between the signature on the check and the signatures on the affidavit, the Civil Court properly found that an issue of fact exists as to whether the endorsement on the check was a forgery and, thus, that plaintiff had not been paid on his claims. Consequently, defendant's motion was properly denied.

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

MUNDY, J.P., BUGGS and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.