February 8, 2008
Quentin Med. Servs., P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50294(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/quentin-med-servs-p-c-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op50294u/
- Decided
- February 8, 2008
- Citation
- 2008 NY Slip Op 50294(U) · 18 Misc 3d 137(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 Quentin Med. Servs., P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50294(U))
| Quentin Med. Servs., P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 50294(U) [18 Misc 3d 137(A)] |
| Decided on February 8, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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: : PESCE, P.J., and RIOS, J.
2006-1976 K C
against
GEICO General Ins. Co., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sylvia G. Ash, J.), entered October 11, 2006, deemed from a judgment entered September 11, 2007 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 11, 2006 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,416.42.
Judgment reversed without costs, order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment vacated 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. A judgment was subsequently entered.
On appeal, defendant asserts that the affidavit by plaintiff’s employee, 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 employee was
insufficient to establish that said employee 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 & 11th Jud [*2]Dists 2006]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment is denied.
In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
Pesce, P.J., and Rios, J., concur.
Decision Date: February 08, 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 burden because its employee's affidavit did not show personal knowledge of the provider's practices and procedures to lay a business-records foundation for the annexed documents.
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
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Deerbrook Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50179(U)) FollowedThe 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) FollowedThe 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
- City Wide Social Work & Psychological Servs., PLLC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50603(U))The provider's employee affidavits failed to establish a business-records foundation for the claim at issue on appeal.
- New York Diagnostic Med. Care, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51808(U))The provider failed to establish that the insurer's denials were untimely or legally insufficient, defeating its prima facie showing.
- Orthotic Surgical & Med. Supply, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50869(U))The provider's supporting affidavit failed to establish a business-record foundation for its summary judgment documents.
- Quality Rehab & P.T., P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52632(U))The insurer's timely denial and affirmed IME reports raised a triable issue of medical necessity.
- Manhattan Med. Imaging, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51737(U))The insurer's timely denial and supported peer review raised a triable issue of medical necessity, defeating provider summary judgment.