Town RX Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

Town RX Inc. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51853(U)) [*1] Town RX Inc. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. 2025 NY Slip Op 51853(U) Decided on November 24, 2025 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Decided on November 24, 2025 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT PRESENT: James, P.J., Brigantti, Alpert, JJ. 571050/25 Town RX Inc. a/a/o Britney Jones, Plaintiff-Respondent, against Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., Defendant-Appellant. Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Lauren L. Esposito, J.), entered on or about February 3, 2025, which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted, in part, plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. Per Curiam. Order (Lauren L. Esposito, J.), entered February 3, 2025, reversed, without costs, plaintiff's cross-motion denied and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Defendant-insurer's motion for summary judgment dismissing this action for first-party, no-fault benefits should have been granted. Defendant made a prima facie showing that plaintiff failed to appear at properly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs) (see Kemper Independence Ins. Co. v Cornerstone Chiropractic, P.C., 185 AD3d 468 [2020]; Hertz Vehs. LLC v Significant Care, PT, P.C., 157 AD3d 600, 601 [2018]; Mapfre Ins. Co. of NY v Manoo, 140 AD3d 468, 469 [2016]). The affidavit of defendant's attorney sufficiently described the standard practices and procedures of his office for mailing EUO scheduling letters (see Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v George, 183 AD3d 755, 757 [2020]; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Five Boro Med. Equip., Inc. 130 AD3d 465, 465-466 [2015]), and counsel further represented, under penalty of perjury, that he had personal knowledge that the described practices and procedures were followed in this matter (id. at 466). This was adequate proof that the EUO letters were mailed to plaintiff. In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. I concur I concur I concur Decision Date: November 24, 2025