March 26, 2007

City Wide Social Work & Psychological Servs., PLLC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50603(U))

Headnote

The court considered whether the provider had established a prima facie case to recover first-party no-fault benefits from the insurance company. The main issue was whether the affidavits and documents submitted by the plaintiff's employee were sufficient to establish the plaintiff's business records. The court held that the affidavits were insufficient to establish that the employee possessed personal knowledge of the plaintiff's business practices and procedures, and therefore, failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment. As a result, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at City Wide Social Work & Psychological Servs., PLLC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50603(U))

City Wide Social Work & Psychological Servs., PLLC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50603(U)) [*1]
City Wide Social Work & Psychological Servs., PLLC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 50603(U) [15 Misc 3d 128(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on March 26, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ
2006-186 K C.
City Wide Social Work and Psychological Services, PLLC a/a/o Pratt Arona, Appellant,

against

GEICO General Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (George J. Silver, J.), entered May 27, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment upon a claim seeking the sum of $1,061.63.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

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, affidavits by an employee of plaintiff and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavits executed by plaintiff’s employee stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. Defendant argued in opposition that plaintiff’s employee 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. Plaintiff appeals from so much of an order as denied its motion for summary judgment upon a claim in the sum of $1,061.63.

Inasmuch as the affidavits submitted by plaintiff’s employee were insufficient to establish that said employee possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s business practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to [*2]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]).

In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 26, 2007