February 27, 2007
Bedford Park Med. Practice, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50378(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/bedford-park-med-practice-p-c-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50378u/
- Decided
- February 27, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 50378(U) · 14 Misc 3d 143(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 Bedford Park Med. Practice, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50378(U))
| Bedford Park Med. Practice, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 50378(U) [14 Misc 3d 143(A)] |
| Decided on February 27, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-320 K C.
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (George J. Silver, J.), entered October 20, 2005. The order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order reversed without costs 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. On appeal, defendant raises for the first time that the affidavit by 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. 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., ____ Misc 3d ____ [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., ___ Misc 3d ___, 2006 NY Slip Op 26483 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 27, 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
Reversed summary judgment for the provider because its officer's affidavit did not show personal knowledge of the provider's practices 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
- Midwood Med. Equip. Supply, Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50670(U))The provider's officer affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation, defeating its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.
- Bedford Park Med. Practice, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50494(U))A provider cannot cure deficient summary judgment proof by first supplying admissible evidence in reply papers.
- 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.
- V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 51080(U))The provider's summary judgment motion failed because its officer's affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation.
- All Mental Care Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50166(U))The provider's officer failed to establish personal knowledge sufficient to admit the supporting documents as business records.