October 29, 2014

Clarke v Scottsdale Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51586(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/clarke-v-scottsdale-ins-co-2014-ny-slip-op-51586u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: October 29, 2014
Citation: 2014 NY Slip Op 51586(U) · 45 Misc 3d 131(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Provider prevailed
Issues: Other

Cite as

Clarke v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 45 Misc 3d 131(A), 2014 NY Slip Op 51586(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014)

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.

The insurer's claims analyst affidavit was inadmissible because the notary failed to attest to personal appearance and identity. The Civil Court, Kings County, denied the insurer summary judgment in the provider's assigned no-fault action because the out-of-state affidavit lacked a certificate of conformity. The Appellate Term, Second Department, explained that this defect under CPLR 2309 (c) was not fatal and could be corrected nunc pro tunc or disregarded under CPLR 2001. Nevertheless, the notary had not stated that the analyst personally appeared and was personally known or satisfactorily identified. The appellate court therefore declined to consider the document's factual assertions and affirmed denial of the insurer's motion on that different ground.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Clarke v Scottsdale Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 51586(U))

[*1]

Clarke v Scottsdale Ins. Co.

2014 NY Slip Op 51586(U) [45 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on October 29, 2014

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 29, 2014

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

PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., SOLOMON and ELLIOT, JJ.
2013-1121 K C

Colin Clarke, M.D., P.C. as Assignee of TAKEEMA MOSES and LUIS RODRIGUEZ, Respondent,
against
Scottsdale Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered January 30, 2013. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the out-of-state affidavit of defendant’s claims analyst submitted in support of the motion was not accompanied by a certificate of conformity. While plaintiff timely objected to the form of defendant’s affidavit, in that it did not comply with the requirements of CPLR 2309 (c), the absence of a certificate of conformity is not a fatal defect (see Fredette v Town of Southampton, 95 AD3d 940 [2012]; see also Gonzalez v Perkan Concrete Corp., 110 AD3d 955 [2013]; Bey v Neuman, 100 AD3d 581 [2012]; Smith v Allstate Ins. Co., 38 AD3d 522 [2007]; Active Chiropractic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 43 Misc 3d 134[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50634[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]), as the defect may be corrected nunc pro tunc or disregarded pursuant to CPLR 2001 (see Midfirst Bank v Agho, __ AD3d __, 2014 NY Slip Op 05778 [2d Dept 2014]).

Nevertheless, we find that the affidavit of defendant’s claims analyst was not in proper admissible form for a different reason, to wit, that the notary public never stated therein that the claims analyst had personally appeared before her and was personally known to her or had satisfactorily established her identity (see Galetta v Galetta, 21 NY3d 186 [2013]; see also Fryer v Rockefeller, 63 NY 268 [1875]; Gross v Rowley, 147 App Div 529 [1911]; cf. Collins v AA Truck Renting Corp., 209 AD2d 363 [1994]). As we do not consider the factual assertions contained in that document, we find no basis to disturb the Civil Court’s denial of defendant’s motion.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: October 29, 2014

Cited in this decision

Active Chiropractic, P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50634(U))An out-of-state affidavit's lack of a certificate of conformity under CPLR 2309 (c) is not a fatal defect.

Similar decisions

Clinton Place Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2014 NY Slip Op 50349(U))The insurer's renewal motion failed because it offered no reasonable justification for initially submitting an unsworn affidavit.
NY Comprehensive Med., P.C. v Maryland Cas. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50521(U))The provider's summary judgment cross motion failed because conflicting medical affirmations raised a triable issue of medical necessity.
Medical Assoc., P.C. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50248(U))The provider's medical affirmation raised a triable issue of medical necessity, defeating the insurer's summary judgment motion.
Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Amica Mut. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 52014(U))An insurer's defective certificate of conformity for an out-of-state affidavit may be cured nunc pro tunc.
Flatlands Med., P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50071(U))The provider's EUO nonappearances defeated coverage, and its objections to the requests could not be considered absent any alleged response.