July 13, 2012

Beal-Medea Prods., Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51347(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts of the case involved a provider seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, with the defendant insurance company denying the claims. The main issue before the court was whether the defendant's denial of claim forms constituted evidence in admissible form. The court held that the denial of claim forms did not need to qualify as business records as they were not offered for a hearsay purpose, but rather to show that the claims had been denied. The court affirmed the order of the Civil Court granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, stating that the plaintiff's remaining contentions were without merit.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Beal-Medea Prods., Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51347(U))

Beal-Medea Prods., Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2012 NY Slip Op 51347(U)) [*1]

Beal-Medea Prods., Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

2012 NY Slip Op 51347(U) [36 Misc 3d 135(A)]

Decided on July 13, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 13, 2012

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ
2010-2593 K C.

Beal-Medea Products, Inc. as Assignee of HENRY CAROL-V, Appellant, —
against
NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lisa S. Ottley, J.), entered April 29, 2010. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Plaintiff argues on appeal that defendant’s motion should have been denied because defendant failed to establish that its denial of claim forms constituted evidence in admissible form pursuant to the business records exception to the rule against hearsay as set forth in CPLR 4518. This argument is unavailing. Defendant did not offer the denial of claim forms to establish the truth of the matters asserted therein, but rather to show that the denials had been sent and that, therefore, the claims had been denied. As the denial of claim forms were not offered for a hearsay purpose, they did not need to qualify as business records (see Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 141[A], 2010 NY [*2]Slip Op 50991[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Quality Health Prods., Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 141[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50990[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]). Plaintiff’s remaining contentions are similarly without merit or improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 13, 2012