Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Paul L. Alpert, J.), entered June 8, 2015, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Paul L. Alpert, J.), entered June 8, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs.

While defendant-insurer established that it timely and properly mailed the notices for examinations under oath to plaintiff’s assignor and his attorney, and that the assignor failed to appear at the initial and follow-up EUOs (see Allstate Ins. Co. v Pierre, 123 AD3d 618 [2014]; see also Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 AD3d 411 [2015]), the limited record so far developed presents triable issues as to whether the assignor’s failure to appear was excusable (see IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stracar Med. Servs., P.C., 116 AD3d 1005, 1007 [2014]). In this regard, defendant’s moving submission, which contains letters from its no-fault examiner and no-fault supervisor acknowledging the assignor’s incarceration, creates rather than eliminates genuine triable issues. We note that the exact period of the assignor’s incarceration remain unclear on this record.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining contentions.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered February 11, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Jose A. Padilla, Jr., J.), entered February 11, 2015, affirmed, with $10 costs.

The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the action for first-party no-fault benefits by establishing that it timely denied certain no-fault claims on the ground that the fees plaintiff charged for the acupuncture services it rendered to the assignor exceeded the amount permitted by the worker’s compensation fee schedule (see Akita Med. Acupuncture, P.C. v Clarendon Ins. Co., 41 Misc 3d 134[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51860[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2013]; Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., 26 Misc 3d 23 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]), and that the remaining claims were paid by defendant pursuant to a settlement agreement.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue as to the efficacy of defendant’s mailing of the denials (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122 [1999]), or the calculation of the fee. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims – which sought the difference between the amount charged for the acupuncture services and payments made to plaintiff pursuant to the fee schedule or settlement agreement, was properly granted.

Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either without merit or, where plaintiff failed to articulate any specific arguments in its appellate brief, abandoned on appeal (see Mendoza v Akerman Senterfitt LLP, 128 AD3d 480, 483 [2015]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Defendants appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered July 8, 2014, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered July 8, 2014, reversed, with $10 costs, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the action for first-party no-fault benefits by establishing that it timely and properly mailed the notices for examinations under oath (EUOs) to plaintiff’s assignor (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Marte-Rosario, 111 AD3d 442 [2013]), and that the assignor failed to appear at two scheduled EUOs (see Allstate Ins. Co. v Pierre, 123 AD3d 618 [2014]; Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 AD3d 411 [2015]). Contrary to plaintiff’s specific contention, defendant established that it requested the EUOs within the applicable time frames set forth in the no-fault regulations, by submitting its EUO letters dated February 4, 2011 and March 1, 2011 (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5[b], 65-3.6[b]; cf. National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v Tam Med. Supply Corp., 131 AD3d 851 [2015]). Moreover, the attorney who was assigned by defendant to take an EUO of plaintiff’s assignor with respect to the subject claim, and “who would have conducted the EUO if the [assignor] had appeared certainly was in a position to state that the [assignor] . . . did not . . . appear in his office on the date[s] indicated” (Hertz Corp., 124 AD3d at 411).

In opposition to defendant’s prima facie showing, plaintiff did not specifically deny the [*2]assignor’s nonappearance at the scheduled EUOs, or otherwise raise a triable issue with respect thereto, or as to the mailing or reasonableness of the underlying notices (see Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Debra Rose Samuels, J.) dated April 4, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Debra Rose Samuels, J.) dated April 4, 2014, reversed, with $10 costs, defendant’s motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

The defendant-insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing this first-party no-fault action should have been denied. Initially, we note that Civil Court correctly determined that defendant’s documentary submissions were sufficient to establish, prima facie, that its denial of claim forms were timely and properly mailed (see Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v Donnelly, 22 NY3d 1169 [2014]; AutoOne Ins./General Assurance v Eastern Island Med. Care, P.C., 136 AD3d 722 [2016]), and that the peer review reports of defendant’s acupuncturist were in admissible form (see Furtow v Jenstro Enters., Inc., 75 AD3d 494, 495 [2010]; Collins v AA Trucking Renting Corp., 209 AD2d 363 [1994]).However, the peer review report pertaining to acupuncture services rendered November 19, 2007 through November 29, 2007, failed to make a prima facie showing that the services rendered during this time frame were not medically necessary. The peer reviewer’s assertion, in effect, that the documentation submitted for his review lacked “supportive information” was insufficient to sustain defendant’s burden of eliminating all triable issues as to medical necessity (see Amherst Med. Supply, LLC v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 39 Misc 3d 135[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50586[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2013]). Moreover, inasmuch as the peer reviewer did not address plaintiff’s claim for services rendered January 2, 2008, and “stopped short of concluding that the assignor’s medical condition could never be shown to warrant further acupuncture treatment,” his report cannot properly form the basis for denial of this claim (see Shirom Acupuncture, P.C. v Kemper Independence Ins. Co., 44 Misc 3d 144[A], [*2]2014 NY Slip Op 51407[U][App Term, 1st Dept. 2014]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Plaintiff, as limited by its brief, appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered April 16, 2015, which, upon reargument, adhered to its prior order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered April 16, 2015, modified by reinstating plaintiff’s claim for first-party no-fault benefits billed under CPT code 99302; as modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs.

Defendant’s documentary submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues as to whether it properly denied plaintiff’s no-fault claim for $54.74, billed under CPT code 99203 (initial evaluation), thus precluding summary judgment dismissing this claim (see Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d 127[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51849[U][App Term, 1st Dept. 2015]).

In the absence of any prejudice, Civil Court properly exercised its discretion under CPLR 2001, to allow defendant to correct the defect in form of the IME report of its acupuncturist/chiropractor.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered December 2, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered December 2, 2014, affirmed with $10 costs.

Defendant-insurer made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it timely and properly denied plaintiff’s no-fault claim. Defendant’s submissions included affidavits of employees of the entities which administer its no-fault claims, which detailed their respective office mailing procedures (see Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 829 [1978]; Easy Care Acupuncture, PC v 21st Century Indem. Ins. Co., 50 Misc 3d 127[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51850[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2015]), and the report of the independent medical examination performed by its chiropractor/acupuncturist, which set forth a sufficient factual basis and medical rationale for the conclusion that there was no need for further acupuncture treatment (see SMB Med., PC v Federal Ins. Co., 47 Misc 3d 155[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50895[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2015]). Plaintiff’s opposition consisting of an attorney’s affirmation unaccompanied by any medical evidence or other competent proof was insufficient to raise a triable issue as to medical necessity (see Munoz v Hollingsworth, 18 AD3d 278, 279 [2005]; Henkin v Fast Times Taxi, 307 AD2d 814, 814-815 [2003]).

Plaintiff’s specific challenge to defendant’s proof of mailing is raised for the first time on appeal and is not properly before this Court (see Diarrassouba v Consolidated Edison Co. of NY Inc., 123 AD3d 525 [2014]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.