APPEARANCE DEFENSE While plaintiff's non-appearance at an EUO vitiates defendant's obligation to provide coverage (seeFive Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 39 Misc 3d 141(A), 2013 NY Slip Op. 50753(U) [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists, 2013] ), to show entitlement to summary judgement, defendant must prove that it properly mailed the EUO requests to the plaintiff, who failed to appear for the EUO, and that defendant mailed plaintiff a timely denial. ( Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon , 113 AD3d 596, 979 N.Y.S.2d 83, 2014 NY Slip Op 00092 [2d Dept 2014] )

Defendant, in support of the cross-motion for summary judgement, submits affirmation of Netanel Bencheim, Esq. dated November 20, 2017 which states that the assignor did not appear for an EUO. Failure to appear for an EUO violates a condition precedent to coverage, and the burden is on defendant to show that the requested party failed to appear ( Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 39 Misc 3d 141(A), 2013 NY Slip Op. 50753(U) [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists, 2013] ). Generally, a statement from an attorney alleging that he or she was present in the office on the relevant dates and that he or she would have been the one to conduct the EUO is sufficient to demonstrate personal knowledge of the no-show ( T & J Chiropractic, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 47 Misc 3d 130[A], 2015 NY Slip Op. 50406(U) [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d 11th & 13th Jud Dists, 2015] ).