January 31, 2007
Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50168(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/fair-price-med-supply-corp-v-progressive-cas-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50168u/
- Decided
- January 31, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 50168(U) · 14 Misc 3d 135(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 Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50168(U))
| Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 50168(U) [14 Misc 3d 135(A)] |
| Decided on January 31, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2006-314 K C.
against
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered October 13, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order 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. After defendant opposed the motion, the court denied plaintiff’s motion, holding that plaintiff’s moving papers failed to establish a prima facie case. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of 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 (see Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Deerbrook Ins. Co., Misc 3d , 2007 NY Slip Op [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]). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
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 establish 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.
- 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 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 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 Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50237(U))The provider's officer failed to establish personal knowledge sufficient to admit the claim 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.
- Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50375(U))The provider failed to authenticate its supporting documents as business records through an officer with the required personal knowledge.