April 21, 2008
Executive MRI Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50902(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/executive-mri-imaging-p-c-v-state-farm-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op50902u/
- Decided
- April 21, 2008
- Citation
- 2008 NY Slip Op 50902(U) · 19 Misc 3d 140(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Legal questions
- Claimant's prima facie case on motions (see the maps)
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Executive MRI Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50902(U))
| Executive MRI Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 50902(U) [19 Misc 3d 140(A)] |
| Decided on April 21, 2008 |
| Appellate Term, Second 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2006-2073 K C.
against
State Farm Ins. Co., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Bernard J. Graham, J.), entered October 19, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed without costs and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The instant appeal by defendant ensued in which the sole issue raised involves the granting of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, defendant asserts that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate officer, submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers and that, as a result, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. We agree. The affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s corporate officer was insufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Deerbrook Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50179[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & [*2]11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 21, 2008
Legal questions
A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?
This decision: Insufficient: claim forms not shown admissible as business records / merits of claim not proved
Held the provider failed its prima facie case because its corporate officer's affidavit did not show personal knowledge of the provider's practices sufficient to admit the annexed documents as business records.
Of the 1,065 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 208 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
- Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Deerbrook Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50179(U))The insurer's challenge to the provider's business-records foundation was considered despite being raised for the first time on appeal.
- Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26483)The provider failed to establish its prima facie case because its corporate officer did not lay a business-records foundation for the claim documents.
Similar decisions
- Executive MRI Imaging, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52250(U))The insurer's causation report was inadmissible, and curing it for the first time in sur-reply did not defeat the provider's summary judgment motion.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50246(U))The provider's corporate officer affidavit failed to establish the business-records foundation needed for a prima facie case.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51487(U))The provider's conclusory affidavit failed to establish an admissible business-records basis for summary judgment.
- Preferred Med. Imaging, P.C. v Hudson Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50685(U))The provider's claim forms lacked a sufficient business-records foundation, so its prima facie summary judgment showing failed.
- Preferred Med. Imaging, P.C. v Countrywide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50693(U))The provider failed to establish a business-records foundation for its claim forms and therefore failed to make a prima facie showing.