Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: Papers/Numbered Notices of Motion and Affidavits Annexed 1 Answering Affidavits and Notice of Cross-Motion 2 Replying Affirmation and Opposition to Cross-Motion 3 Exhibits Email Correspondence 4 Other BACKGROUND Plaintiff medical provider, Restorative Chiropractic Solutions, PC, brings this action against insurer defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services provided to its assignor, Lourdes Clyne (“plaintiff assignor”). Defendant makes the instant motion for summary judgment based on its denials of the claims. The bulk of the denials — three out of five of them — allege material misrepresentation in the procurement of the policy. Defendant asks that if this court does not grant summary judgment on a proper denial of material misrepresentation, that it determine its denials were at a minimum timely. Plaintiff opposes the motion and cross-moves for summary judgment. Plaintiff assignor was involved in a motor vehicle accident on June 14, 2017, and sought medical treatment. This action seeks reimbursement for five claims corresponding to dates of service between August 1, 2017 to September 7, 2017, totaling $505.98. Defendant supplied the following chart that provides information relevant to its request for verification and denials: Bill Dates of Service Amount of Bill Amount Paid Date Received Delay letter Date of Denial Reason for Denial 18/01/17$54.74$43.799/05/17N/A9/12/17Bill was partially paid and remainder was denied 28/02/17 - 8/10/17$69.36$55.499/05/17N/A9/12/17Bill was partially paid and remainder was denied 38/11/17- 8/22/17$173.40$09/18/179/26/17- 10/27/1711/27/17Material Misrepresentation in Procurement of the Policy 48/23/17-8/24/17$69.36$09/18/179/26/17- 10/27/1711/27/17Material Misrepresentation in Procurement of the Policy 58/31/17-9/07/17$138.72$09/29/1710/05/1711/27/17Material Misrepresentation in Procurement of the Policy Plaintiff assignor acquired the policy with a residential address in Florida. The subject motor vehicle accident occurred in New York. Defendant’s investigation of the claims prompted questions about plaintiff assignor’s residency and principal garaging location of the insured vehicle (Galluzo Aff.,
18-19). Defendant mailed verification request letters to plaintiff seeking an examination under oath (“EUO”) of plaintiff assignor to ascertain if there was a material misrepresentation in procurement of the policy (Galluzo Aff., Exh. E). The EUO was held on November 3, 2017 (Galluzo Aff., Exh. G). Plaintiff assignor testified that at the time of the subject accident she resided in Brooklyn, New York, and principally garaged the insured vehicle there as well (id.; Galluzo Aff.,
