Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Bernard J. Graham, J.), entered August 10, 2007. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to plaintiff's $766.57 claim; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits on claims for $350 and $766.57, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff failed to provide the verification which defendant had requested. The court below denied plaintiff's motion and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.

The affidavits submitted in support of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment were sufficient to establish that the letters requesting verification and scheduling independent medical examinations (IMEs) of plaintiff's assignor were timely sent pursuant to a standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that such items were properly addressed and mailed (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]). Inasmuch as plaintiff did not demonstrate that it provided defendant with the verification requested by defendant in its verification and follow-up verification requests with respect to plaintiff's claim form seeking the sum of $350, the court properly granted defendant summary judgment dismissing the $350 claim as premature, since it was not overdue (see Central Suffolk Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 24 AD3d 492 [2005]).

However, defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's $766.57 [*2]claim. Although defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing said claim was based upon the failure of plaintiff's assignor to appear for two IMEs, defendant failed to proffer proof from someone with personal knowledge of the assignor's failure to appear for the IMEs (see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 720 [2006]). As a result, defendant failed to establish, as a matter of law, its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing said claim (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

Plaintiff's remaining contentions lack merit.

Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.

Golia, J.P., concurs in a separate memorandum.

Golia, J.P., concurs in the result only, in the following memorandum:
While I agree with the ultimate disposition in the decision reached by the majority, I wish to note that I am constrained to agree with certain propositions of law set forth in cases cited therein which are inconsistent with my prior expressed positions and generally contrary to my views.
Decision Date: July 8, 2008