July 24, 2007
Union Physician Health Care, P.C. v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51505(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/union-physician-health-care-p-c-v-american-mfrs-mut-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-51505u/
- Decided
- July 24, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 51505(U) · 16 Misc 3d 134(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 Union Physician Health Care, P.C. v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51505(U))
| Union Physician Health Care, P.C. v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 51505(U) [16 Misc 3d 134(A)] |
| Decided on July 24, 2007 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 BELEN, JJ
2005-1822 K C.
against
American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), entered September 9, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order affirmed without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The court below denied the motion on the ground that defendant showed that it timely denied the claims. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, defendant asserts that the affidavit of plaintiff’s corporate officer, submitted in support of the motion, failed to lay a proper foundation for 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]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions.Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 24, 2007
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 officer's affidavit did not show personal knowledge of its practices so as 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
- 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
- Union Physician Healthcare, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50039(U))The provider failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment because its officer's affidavit lacked a business-record foundation.
- A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50671(U))The provider failed to make a prima facie showing because its officer's affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation.
- Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50152(U))The provider's corporate officer affidavit failed to establish a business-records foundation for the documents supporting summary judgment.
- Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50168(U))The provider's corporate officer affidavit failed to lay the business-records foundation needed to establish a prima facie case.
- Bedford Park Med. Practice, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50378(U))The provider's corporate officer failed to lay a business-records foundation, defeating the provider's prima facie summary judgment showing.