February 21, 2012

Andromeda Med. Care, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50344(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a no-fault benefits case. The defendant for this case, a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, appealed from an order of the Civil Court which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The appellate court reversed the order and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court held that the defendant, in support of its motion, submitted an affidavit by its biomechanical engineer, which was in admissible form and demonstrated the lack of a causal connection between the accident and the injuries claimed by the plaintiff's assignors. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to rebut the defendant's showing, but it failed to do so. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Andromeda Med. Care, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50344(U))

Andromeda Med. Care, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 50344(U)) [*1]

Andromeda Med. Care, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co.

2012 NY Slip Op 50344(U) [34 Misc 3d 153(A)]

Decided on February 21, 2012

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 21, 2012

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : GOLIA, J.P., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
. ———————————— 1;———————————— 151;———————————— ————————-x

Andromeda Medical Care, P.C. as Assignee of ANTOINETTE WALKER and MARY YOU, Respondent, —
against
Utica Mutual Ins. Co., Appellant. ———————————— 1;———————————— 151;———————————— ————————-x

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered June 18, 2010. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by its biomechanical engineer, which affidavit was in admissible form, as it was accompanied by a certificate of conformity pursuant to Real Property Law § 299-a, and was therefore in compliance with CPLR 2309 (c) (cf. Andromeda Med. Care, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 139[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51629[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]). The engineer concluded that the injuries of plaintiff’s assignors could not have arisen out of the accident in question, after he reviewed, among other things, the photographs of the vehicle involved in the accident, the medical records of plaintiff and other providers regarding their treatment of the assignors, and copies of the transcripts of plaintiff’s assignors’ testimony at their examinations under oath, all of which defendant attached to its moving papers.

As defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof in admissible form showing the lack of a causal connection between the accident and the injuries claimed by plaintiff’s assignors, the burden shifted to plaintiff to rebut defendant’s showing. Plaintiff, in its opposition papers, failed to do so. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should therefore have been granted.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Golia, J.P., and Weston, J., concur. [*2]

Rios, J., dissents in a separate memorandum.

Rios, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order in the following memorandum:

I respectfully dissent and vote to affirm the order.

Contrary to the finding of the majority, the affidavit of defendant’s biomechanical engineer was insufficient to establish as a matter of law that the injuries claimed by plaintiff’s assignors could not have arisen from the accident. Instead, the affidavit merely demonstrated a “founded belief” that the alleged injuries did not arise out of the accident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied.
Decision Date: February 21, 2012