March 19, 2007

Capri Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50536(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the plaintiff was entitled to first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered to its assignor. The court considered the fact that the affidavit by the plaintiff's corporate officer failed to lay a proper foundation for the documents annexed to the plaintiff's moving papers, which resulted in the plaintiff failing to establish a prima facie case. As a result, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The holding of the court was that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that it submitted its claim forms to the defendant, and therefore, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The court did not address any other issues in the case.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Capri Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50536(U))

Capri Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50536(U)) [*1]
Capri Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 50536(U) [15 Misc 3d 127(A)]
Decided on March 19, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on March 19, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2006-29 Q C.
Capri Medical, P.C. A/A/O SVETLANA MIRZOYAN, Appellant,

against

New York Central Mutual Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County

(Johnny Lee Baynes, J.), entered July 7, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered to its assignor. The court below denied plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment, holding that there was an issue of fact as to whether the injuries
alleged by plaintiff’s assignor were caused by a covered accident. The instant appeal
by plaintiff ensued.

On appeal, defendant raises for the first time that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate officer, submitted in support of the motion, 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 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. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that it submitted its claim forms to defendant thereby entitling it to summary judgment (see Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v [*2]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]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 19, 2007