March 19, 2007
Capri Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50536(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/capri-med-p-c-v-new-york-cent-mut-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50536u/
- Decided
- March 19, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 50536(U) · 15 Misc 3d 127(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 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) [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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
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.
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
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 to show prima facie that it submitted its claim forms because its officer's 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
- Capri Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50611(U))The provider failed to make a prima facie showing because its officer's affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation.
- Capri Med., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51158(U))The provider's defective affidavit and the insurer's insufficient staged-accident proof required denial of both summary judgment motions.
- V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 51080(U))The provider's summary judgment motion failed because its officer's affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation.
- 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.
- Bedford Park Med. Practice, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50378(U))The provider's corporate officer failed to lay a business-records foundation, defeating the provider's prima facie summary judgment showing.