Opinion
2017-941 K C
07-12-2019
GENTLECARE AMBULATORY ANESTHESIA SERVICES; Lyonel F. Paul, M.D., as Assignee of Agbai, Judy, Appellant, v. GEICO INS. CO., Respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.
The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, JJ
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim form had been timely mailed (see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co. , 50 AD3d 1123 [2008] ) and to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. , 35 AD3d 720 [2006] ). Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate "as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider] ... that the [provider] twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[ ]" ( Interboro Ins. Co. v. Clennon , 113 AD3d 596, 597 [2014] ; see Parisien v. Metlife Auto & Home , 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; Palafox PT, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 49 Misc 3d 144[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015] ). Consequently, plaintiff has not provided any basis to disturb the Civil Court's order.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.