March 26, 2007
City Wide Social Work & Psychological Servs., PLLC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50603(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/city-wide-social-work-psychological-servs-pllc-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50603u/
- Decided
- March 26, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 50603(U) · 15 Misc 3d 128(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 City Wide Social Work & Psychological Servs., PLLC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50603(U))
| City Wide Social Work & Psychological Servs., PLLC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 50603(U) [15 Misc 3d 128(A)] |
| Decided on March 26, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2006-186 K C.
against
GEICO General Ins. Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (George J. Silver, J.), entered May 27, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment upon a claim seeking the sum of $1,061.63.
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, affidavits by an employee of plaintiff and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavits executed by plaintiff’s employee stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. Defendant argued in opposition that plaintiff’s employee 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. Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order as denied its motion for summary judgment upon a claim in the sum of $1,061.63.
Inasmuch as the affidavits submitted by plaintiff’s employee were insufficient to establish that said employee 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 [*2]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]).
In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 26, 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 employee's conclusory affidavits did not establish personal knowledge of the provider's business practices to lay a business-records foundation for the annexed documents.
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
- A.B. Med., PLLC v GEICO (2013 NY Slip Op 50203(U))The provider failed to establish that the insurer's denials were untimely or without merit as a matter of law.
- Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v GEICO (2007 NY Slip Op 50012(U))The provider failed to establish a business-record foundation because its officer's affidavit did not show the required personal knowledge.
- Downtown Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50660(U))The provider's president failed to establish a business-records foundation, defeating the provider's prima facie summary judgment 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.
- Psychological Practice, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51304(U))The provider's owner failed to establish the personal knowledge needed to admit the documents supporting summary judgment.