February 6, 2007
Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50237(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/fair-price-med-supply-corp-v-nationwide-mut-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50237u/
- Decided
- February 6, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 50237(U) · 14 Misc 3d 136(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 Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50237(U))
| Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 50237(U) [14 Misc 3d 136(A)] |
| Decided on February 6, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2006-291 K C.
against
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Milagros A. Matos, J.), entered December 22, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order affirmed without costs.
In this action by a provider of medical supplies 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 that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate officer was insufficient to establish personal knowledge of the facts set forth therein because the corporate officer did not demonstrate that he possessed sufficient personal knowledge of plaintiff’s office practices and procedures to lay a proper foundation to establish that the documents submitted by plaintiff were admissible pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518). The court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing, and this appeal ensued.
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
[*2]
showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see 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]). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 6, 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 corporate officer's conclusory affidavit did not show personal knowledge of the provider's practices sufficient 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.
- 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
- Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50608(U))The provider's officer affidavit failed to establish a business-records foundation, defeating its prima facie summary judgment showing.
- 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.
- Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50374(U))The provider's officer did not establish the personal knowledge needed to admit the summary judgment documents as business records.
- Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50357(U))The provider and insurer failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment because their affidavits lacked the necessary personal knowledge.