No appearances for Defendants Flawless Quality Care Services Inc., Lifeline Medical Imaging P.C., and Prompt Recovery Med Inc. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION This is a no-fault-insurance-coverage action. Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, moves under CPLR 3212 for summary judgment on its request for a no-coverage declaration as against appearing defendants Advantage Radiology, P.C., Agasaky Multi Services, Inc., Flawless Quality Care Services Inc., Ideal Care Pharmacy, Inc., Lifeline Medical Imaging P.C., Prompt Recovery Med Inc., Shop-N-Save Pharmacy Inc., and TMVQS Corp. These defendants are all medical-provider assignees of one or more of the alleged injured persons, nonappearing defendants Antonio Blackburn, Romona Berry, and Zoria Nyack.1 State Farm’s summary-judgment motion is granted as to all defendants against whom judgment is sought except for defendant TMVQS. With respect to TMVQS, the motion is denied, and summary judgment is granted to TMVQS as the non-moving party. DISCUSSION State Farm premises its claim for declaratory judgment on evidence that Blackburn, Berry, and Nyack each failed twice to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs) scheduled under the terms of the underlying no-fault insurance policy. A no-fault insurer seeking a declaration of no coverage due to claimants’ failures to appear for EUOs requested under the no-fault policy must first demonstrate that the insurer complied with the procedural and timeliness requirements of 11 NYCRR 65-3.5, governing the handling of no-fault claims. (See American Transit Ins. Co. v. Longevity Med. Supply, Inc., 131 AD3d 841, 841 [1st Dept 2015].) The sole exception to this rule is when the insurer establishes that it requested additional verification of the no-fault claim in the form of an EUO before the insurer received any NF-3 bills from treating providers. In that case, the requirements of §65-3.5 do not apply. (Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Manoo, 140 AD3d 468, 469 [1st Dept 2016].) If an insurer requests an EUO after receiving bills from treating providers, that EUO must be requested within 15 business days of the receipt of a bill. (See 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 [b], [d]; American Transit Ins. Co. v. Acosta, 2022 NY Slip Op 01097 [1st Dept Feb. 17, 2022].) An insurer seeking judgment against a given provider need not show that it timely requested an EUO relative to a bill received from that provider; rather, as long as the EUO requests were timely relative to a bill from any provider, the claimant’s failures to appear at the EUO will support the insurer’s coverage defense. (See Country-Wide Ins. Co. v. Duff, 2022 NY Slip Op 51289[U], at *1 [Sup Ct, NY County Dec. 20, 2022], citing Unitrin Direct Ins. Co. v. Beckles, 188 AD3d 620, 621 [1st Dept 2020].) 1. The underlying collision in this case occurred on February 6, 2021. (See NYSCEF No. 112 at 1 [no-fault benefits application].) State Farm mailed its first EUO letters to Blackburn, Berry, and Nyack on February 23, 2021 — less than 15 business days later. (See NYSCEF No. 102 at 3 [affidavit of mailing to Blackburn]; NYSCEF No. 108 at 3 [affidavit of mailing to Berry]; NYSCEF No. 113 at 3 [affidavit of mailing to Nyack].) Thus, regardless whether the timeliness requirements of §65-3.5 did (or did not) apply here, State Farm’s EUO letters were timely. State Farm has also established that the three injured parties did not appear for the scheduled EUOs, or for timely and properly rescheduled EUOs.2 (See NYSCEF Nos. 104, 109, 114 [statements on the record about nonappearances]; NYSCEF Nos. 105, 110, 115 [letters rescheduling EUOs]; NYSCEF Nos. 106, 111, 116 [statements on the record about nonappearances at rescheduled EUOs].) This evidence establishes, prima facie, that State Farm is entitled as a matter of law to its requested no-coverage declaratory judgment.3 Defendants, with the exception of defendant TMVQS, do not provide evidence that would raise a material dispute of fact. 2. Defendants argue that State Farm has not provided a specific objective justification for requesting the three EUOs in this case. (See NYSCEF No. 130 at 4-7; NYSCEF No. 136 at 5-6.) But State Farm did provide the necessary justification: The underlying collision happened nearly 200 miles from the garaging address given by the policyholder when obtaining the insurance policy, yet the policyholder was not in the vehicle at the time of the collision; and the alleged injured persons’ medical-provider assignees submitted claims for thousands of dollars worth of treatment, but the accident seemingly was not serious enough to lead to the generation of a police report. (See NYSCEF No. 89 at
12-15, 19.) These justifications are sufficient to meet State Farm’s burden on this motion. Ideal Care and TMVQS vigorously attack the sufficiency and persuasiveness of State Farm’s proffered justifications. (NYSCEF No. 130 at
