July 12, 2007
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51487(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/delta-diagnostic-radiology-p-c-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-51487u/
- Decided
- July 12, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 51487(U) · 16 Misc 3d 132(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 Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51487(U))
| Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 51487(U) [16 Misc 3d 132(A)] |
| Decided on July 12, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2006-900 K C.
against
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), entered December 8, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff’s counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of plaintiff and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s corporate officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. In opposition, defendant argued, inter alia, that the affidavit of plaintiff’s corporate officer was of no probative value because it did not proffer facts in admissible form. Plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion for summary judgment.
Inasmuch as the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s corporate officer was insufficient to establish that said corporate officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s business practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Accordingly, the order, insofar as it denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, should be affirmed.
In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
[*2]
Decision Date: July 12, 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 conclusory affidavit did not establish personal knowledge of its business practices 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
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- 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
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50238(U))The provider's conclusory corporate officer affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation for summary judgment.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Statewide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50677(U))The provider's officer affidavit failed to establish a business-records foundation, leaving its prima facie summary judgment showing deficient.
- 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 Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50666(U))The provider failed to make a prima facie showing because its officer did not establish the attached documents' admissibility as business records.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51157(U))The provider failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through properly supported business records.