March 28, 2007

Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50666(U))

Headnote

The court considered whether the plaintiff, Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C., was entitled to summary judgment in a case to recover first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment. The court held that the plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing, as the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff's corporate officer was insufficient to establish that the officer possessed personal knowledge of the plaintiff's practices and procedures, and therefore did not lay a sufficient foundation for the admission of the documents annexed to the plaintiff's moving papers as business records. As a result, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50666(U))

Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50666(U)) [*1]
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 50666(U) [15 Misc 3d 131(A)]
Decided on March 28, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 28, 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
2006-339 K C.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. a/a/o ROMEL LAGUERRE, Appellant,

against

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arlene Bluth, J.), entered November 28, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order 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, an affidavit by a corporate officer of plaintiff and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s corporate officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. The court below denied the motion on the ground that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case because the corporate officer’s affidavit did not lay a sufficient foundation to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers constituted evidence in admissible form. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

Inasmuch as 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 [*2]plaintiff’s moving papers, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; see Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 28, 2007