QUALITY HEALTH SUPPLY CORP v. NATIONWIDE INS (2020)

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely denied the claims based upon plaintiff's failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved for summary judgment. By order entered July 30, 2018, the Civil Court denied defendant's motion and granted plaintiff's cross motion.

Where, as here, no other verification request is outstanding (see Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 38 Misc 3d 143[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50258[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013] ), the 30-day period for an insurer to pay or deny a claim (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1] ) based upon a failure to appear for an EUO begins to run on the date of the second EUO nonappearance, when an insurer is permitted to conclude that there was a failure to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [a] [1]; Chapa Prods. Corp. v. MVAIC, 66 Misc 3d 16 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v. 21st Century Ins. Co., 61 Misc 3d 146[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51696[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018] ). Defendant asserted that the assignor had failed to appear on September 9, 2016, October 4, 2016, and November 1, 2016. As defendant did not deny the claims until November 14, 2016, which was more than 30 days after the second failure to appear, for the EUO scheduled for October 4, 2016, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint because defendant did not demonstrate that it is not precluded from raising its proffered defense (see Westchester Med. Ctr. v. Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co., 60 AD3d 1045 [2009]). Furthermore, as defendant raises no issue with respect to plaintiff's establishment of its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, we do not pass upon the propriety of the Civil Court's determination with respect thereto.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

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