Coney Is. Physician Care, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51859(U))

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered April 18, 2012. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

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 [*2]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. Consequently, the 30-day period within which defendant was required to pay or deny those claims did not begin to run (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a]; Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]), and so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon those claims should have been dismissed as premature.

With respect to the remaining claims at issue, defendant submitted an affidavit by an employee of the company which had been retained by defendant to schedule independent medical examinations (IMEs), which affidavit established that the scheduling letters had been timely mailed in accordance with that office’s standard mailing practices and procedures (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Defendant also submitted affidavits by the healthcare professionals who were to perform the IMEs, which affidavits 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]). An affidavit executed by defendant’s litigation examiner sufficiently described the standard mailing practices and procedures to establish the timely mailing of the denial of claim forms (see St. Vincent’s Hosp. of Richmond, 50 AD3d 1123; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., 17 Misc 3d 16). Since an assignor’s appearance at an IME is a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability on the policy (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C., 35 AD3d at 722), the branches of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the remaining claims should have been granted.

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.