July 7, 2010
D & R Med. Supply, Inc. v Safeco Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51179(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/d-r-med-supply-inc-v-safeco-ins-co-2010-ny-slip-op-51179u/
- Decided
- July 7, 2010
- Citation
- 2010 NY Slip Op 51179(U) · 28 Misc 3d 127(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Later treatment
- Declined to follow in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
- 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 D & R Med. Supply, Inc. v Safeco Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 51179(U))
| D & R Med. Supply, Inc. v Safeco Ins. Co. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 51179(U) [28 Misc 3d 127(A)] |
| Decided on July 7, 2010 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected in part through July 9, 2010; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : STEINHARDT, J.P., PESCE and RIOS, JJ
2009-104 K C.
against
Safeco Ins. Co., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered October 8, 2008. The order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is reversed without costs and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion, and this appeal by defendant ensued.
On appeal, defendant argues, as it did in the Civil Court, that the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s billing manager in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was insufficient to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518. We agree (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Accordingly, the order is reversed and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
Steinhardt, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 07, 2010
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 summary judgment improperly granted because the billing manager's affidavit did not establish that the annexed documents were admissible under CPLR 4518.
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
- Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 07846)The providers failed to establish a prima facie case because they did not demonstrate the admissibility of their billing records.
- Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26483)The provider failed to establish its prima facie case because its corporate officer did not lay a business-records foundation for the claim documents.
Cited by
A label shows how the later decision treated this one.
- Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 08430) Declined to followA provider need not prove a claim's merits for summary judgment where the insurer failed to timely and properly deny the claim.
Similar decisions
- D & R Med. Supply, Inc. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2013 NY Slip Op 50179(U))The insurer's cross motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the provider's no-fault complaint was granted and affirmed on appeal.
- DJS Med. Supplies, Inc. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50584(U))The provider's officer affidavit failed to establish the personal knowledge needed to admit its supporting documents as business records.
- RLC Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51131(U))The provider's billing manager failed to establish admissible business records, defeating the provider's motion for summary judgment.
- All Borough Group Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50153(U))The insurer's affidavits established timely mailing of its medical-necessity denial through its standard office practice and procedure.
- Amaze Med. Supply, Inc. v Travelers Prop. Cas. (2009 NY Slip Op 51357(U))The provider's summary judgment motion was denied because its biller's affidavit did not establish the admissibility of the annexed documents.