Opinion
2009-1141 K C.
Decided August 12, 2010.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered January 13, 2009. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is reversed without costs, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for, among other things, summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for two scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).
Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that defendant's denial of plaintiff's claims should be held to be untimely in that defendant had failed to establish the timely mailing of the EUO scheduling letters and also had failed to establish that plaintiff did not appear for the EUOs. The Civil Court denied defendant's motion and granted plaintiff's cross motion, finding that defendant had failed to establish the timely mailing of the denial of claim forms and the EUO scheduling letters, and also had failed to establish that plaintiff did not appear for the scheduled EUOs. The instant appeal by defendant ensued.
Contrary to the Civil Court's findings, defendant established the timely mailing of the EUO scheduling letters. Defendant submitted the affirmation of a partner in the law firm retained by defendant to conduct plaintiff's EUO in which he set forth in detail his firm's standard office practice and procedure for the mailing of EUO scheduling letters ( see New York Presbyt. Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co. , 29 AD3d 547 ; Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679; Top Choice Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 22 Misc 3d 133[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50230 [U] [App Term, 2d, 11th 13th Jud Dists 2009]). In addition, counsel alleged facts sufficient to establish that plaintiff had failed to appear at counsel's law office for the duly scheduled EUOs ( see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. , 35 AD3d 720 ; W Z Acupuncture, P.C. v Amex Assur. Co., 24 Misc 3d 142 [A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51732[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th 13th Jud Dists 2009]). Since the appearance of the plaintiff at an EUO is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the policy ( see Insurance Department Regulations [ 11 NYCRR] § 65-1.1; Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722), the Civil Court should have granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We note that, contrary to the Civil Court's finding, the affidavit submitted by defendant's no-fault specialist established that defendant timely mailed its denial of claim forms.
Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.
Pesce, P.J., and Golia, J., concur.
Rios, J., dissents in a separate memorandum.
I would affirm the order of the Civil Court. While an examination under oath (EUO) is mandated when timely requested by the insurance carrier, here defendant failed to present an affidavit from anyone with personal knowledge that the plaintiff did not appear for the EUO. Contrary to the finding by the majority, defense counsel fails to explain how he knows that plaintiff failed to appear for the EUO ( see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. , 35 AD3d 720 ).