PSYCHOLOGY YME v. GLOBAL LIBERTY INS CO OF (2020)

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 granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant established as a matter of law that, as to the claim at issue, defendant “twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider's] assignor, who had allegedly been injured in a motor vehicle accident, that the assignor 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]). As a result, since appearance at a duly demanded EUO “is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the policy” (Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006]), contrary to plaintiff's contention, defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment. Plaintiff's remaining contentions are raised for the first time on appeal and, in any event, lack merit.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.