April 2, 2007
Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50688(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vista-surgical-supplies-inc-v-geico-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50688u/
- Decided
- April 2, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 50688(U) · 15 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 Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50688(U))
| Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 50688(U) [15 Misc 3d 132(A)] |
| Decided on April 2, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ
2006-641 K C.
against
GEICO Insurance Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Delores J. Thomas, J.), entered January 25, 2006. 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 an officer of plaintiff and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s 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 by plaintiff’s officer was insufficient to submit proof in admissible form. The court below denied the motion on
the ground that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case. 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 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, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; see 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. [*2]
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 02, 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 showing because its officer's conclusory affidavit did not establish personal knowledge of the provider's practices and procedures to admit the annexed documents as business records.
Of the 1,063 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
- Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v General Assur. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50613(U))The medical-supply provider failed to establish a prima facie case because its officer's affidavit lacked a business-records foundation.
- Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50502(U))The provider's officer failed to establish personal knowledge sufficient to admit the motion's supporting documents as business records.
- Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Progressive Cas. (2007 NY Slip Op 50695(U))The provider's summary judgment proof failed because its corporate officer did not establish a foundation for the attached business records.
- Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50939(U))The provider failed to establish a prima facie case because its officer's affidavit lacked a sufficient business-records foundation.
- Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50524(U))The provider failed to establish its prima facie case because its officer's affidavit lacked a foundation for the billing records.