A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501[c] ). The branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's second and third causes of action, were supported by an affidavit executed by defendant's litigation examiner which sufficiently described defendant's standard mailing practices and procedures so as to establish the timely mailing of defendant's request for additional verification (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008] ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ). In addition, the affidavit demonstrated that, after defendant had received the requested additional verification, defendant had timely denied the claims (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123 ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc.3d 16 ) on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).
The Civil Court denied plaintiff's motion, granted the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's third cause of action as premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification, and granted the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the remaining causes of action due to the failure of plaintiff's assignor to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs) and examinations under oath (EUOs). In support of the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's third cause of action, defendant submitted an affidavit by its claims examiner which established that defendant had timely mailed its verification request and follow-up verification request (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendant also demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and thus that plaintiff's third cause of action is premature (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]).
The Civil Court denied plaintiff's motion, granted the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's third cause of action as premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification, and granted the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the remaining causes of action due to the failure of plaintiff's assignor to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs) and examinations under oath (EUOs). In support of the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's third cause of action, defendant submitted an affidavit by its claims examiner which established that defendant had timely mailed its verification request and follow-up verification request (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 2008; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ). Defendant demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and thus that plaintiff's third cause of action is premature (see 11 NYCRR 65–3.8[a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 2005 ).
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment upon the first, third, fourth and fifth causes of action and granted the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing these causes of action. In support of the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's fifth cause of action, defendant submitted an affidavit by its claims examiner which established that defendant had timely mailed its verification request and follow-up verification request (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 2008; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ). Defendant demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and, thus, that plaintiff's fifth cause of action is premature (see 11 NYCRR 65–3.8[a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 2005 ).
The Civil Court denied plaintiff's motion, granted the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's second cause of action as premature because plaintiff had failed to provide requested verification, and granted the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the remaining causes of action due to the failure of plaintiff's assignor to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs) and examinations under oath (EUOs). In support of the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's second cause of action, defendant submitted an affidavit by its claims examiner which established that defendant had timely mailed its verification request and follow-up verification request (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 2008; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ). Defendant demonstrated prima facie that it had not received the requested verification and thus that plaintiff's second cause of action is premature (see 11 NYCRR 65–3.8[a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 2005 ).
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 motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.An affidavit submitted by defendant's no-fault claims examiner established that, with respect to two bills for services rendered on December 22, 2009, a bill for services rendered on December 23, 2009, and a bill for $340 for services rendered from January 15, 2010 to January 21, 2010, defendant had timely mailed verification requests and follow-up verification requests (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008] ; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ). Defendant demonstrated that it had not received the verification requested, and plaintiff did not show that such verification had been provided to defendant.
The complaint seeks to recover upon claims in the principal sums of $1,045, $950, $1,140 (for services rendered December 27, 2007 through January 14, 2008) and $1,140 (for services rendered January 28, 2008 through February 26, 2008). A review of the record indicates that, with respect to plaintiff's $1,045 claim, defendant timely ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008];Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ) paid $418.99 and denied the remaining $626.01, and, with respect to the $950 claim, defendant timely ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123];Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc.3d 16) paid $380.90 and denied the remaining $569.10. These claims were partially denied on the ground that the amount billed by plaintiff exceeded the fees allowed by the workers' compensation fee schedule.
In support of the branches of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's first, second, seventh and eighth causes of action, defendant submitted an affidavit by its claims examiner which established that defendant had timely mailed ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008];Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ) its initial and follow-up requests for verification to plaintiff and that plaintiff had failed to provide the requested verification. In opposition, plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had provided defendant, prior to the commencement of the action, with the requested verification.
In support of the branches of its cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's first, fifth, and sixth causes of action, defendant submitted an affidavit by a supervisor of Media Referral, Inc., which had been retained by defendant to schedule independent medical examinations (IMEs), which sufficiently established that IME scheduling letters had been timely mailed ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008];Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ). Defendant also submitted, among other things, affidavits by the doctors who were to perform the IMEs which established that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the duly scheduled IMEs ( see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006] ).
Inasmuch as defendant raises no issue on appeal with respect to plaintiff's prima facie case upon the five claims for which plaintiff was awarded summary judgment, we do not pass upon the propriety of the Civil Court's determination with respect thereto. The affidavits submitted by defendant established that plaintiff's claims for $612.59, $167.07 (for services rendered on August 15, 2006) and $167.07 (for services rendered September 8, 2006 through September 19, 2006) had been timely denied ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008];Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ) on the ground that the assignor had failed to appear at independent medical examinations (IMEs). Defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims in the amount of $612.59 and $167.07 (for services rendered September 8, 2006 through September 19, 2006).