March 26, 2007
Capri Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50611(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/capri-med-p-c-v-allstate-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50611u/
- Decided
- March 26, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 50611(U) · 15 Misc 3d 129(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 Capri Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50611(U))
| Capri Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 50611(U) [15 Misc 3d 129(A)] |
| Decided on March 26, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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., WESTON PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ
2006-461 Q C.
against
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Howard G. Lane, J.), entered October 27, 2005, deemed an appeal from a judgment entered on February 2, 2006 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 27, 2005 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $7,831.65.
Judgment reversed without costs, order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment vacated and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied.
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. In opposition, defendant argued, inter alia, that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate officer 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 court below granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the instant appeal by defendant ensued.
[*2]
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 Dan Med., P.C. v New York
Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists, 2006]). Consequently, the judgment should be reversed, the order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment vacated and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 26, 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 corporate officer's conclusory affidavit did not establish personal knowledge of the provider's practices to admit the annexed documents as business records.
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
- Capri Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50536(U))The provider failed to prove submission of its claims because its officer's affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation.
- 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.
- 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.
- All Mental Care Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50607(U))The provider failed to make a prima facie showing because its corporate officer's affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation.
- V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50400(U))The provider failed to prove claim submission because its corporate officer's affidavit lacked a sufficient business-records foundation.