Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Angelique Evangelista and Frank D'Esposito of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jill R. Epstein, J.), dated August 10, 2023. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted without prejudice.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied MVAIC's motion which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint either on the ground that MVAIC had never received the claims at issue or that the action had been commenced after the three-year statute of limitations had expired. The order also denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.

MVAIC made a prima facie showing that it had not received the claim forms at issue. The affidavit submitted by plaintiff's owner in opposition to MVAIC's motion was insufficient to give rise to a presumption that those claim forms had been timely mailed to, and received by, MVAIC (see Residential Holding Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 679 [2001]), as plaintiff's owner repeatedly stated that he personally mailed the claim forms "to [the] insurance carrier," without setting forth the name of the recipient or the address to which they were mailed, and the copies of the claim forms annexed to plaintiff's cross-motion were dated after the date on which the claim forms were purportedly mailed "to [the] insurance carrier." Consequently, [*2]MVAIC's time to pay or deny plaintiff's claims never began to run and MVAIC is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice, as it is premature (see Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [c]; Wave Med. Servs., P.C. v Metlife Auto & Home, 69 Misc 3d 138[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51321[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; cf. Veraso Med. Supply Corp. v NY City Tr. Auth., 63 Misc 3d 152[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50754[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted without prejudice.

BUGGS, J.P., TOUSSAINT and MUNDY, JJ., concur.