March 28, 2007

Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Statewide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50677(U))

Headnote

The court considered the motion for summary judgment in an action by a provider to recover first-party no-fault benefits, which was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff's counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of plaintiff, and various documents. The main issue decided was whether the affidavit executed by plaintiff's corporate officer was legally sufficient to establish that the officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff's practices and procedures, in order to lay a foundation for the admission of the documents as business records. The court held that the affidavit was insufficient to establish the officer's personal knowledge, and therefore plaintiff 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 Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Statewide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50677(U))

Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Statewide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50677(U)) [*1]
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Statewide Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 50677(U) [15 Misc 3d 132(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2006-506 K C.
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. a/a/o YVES JEAN-PAUL, Appellant,

against

Statewide Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jack M. Battaglia, J.), entered February 8, 2006. 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 affidavit executed by plaintiff’s corporate officer was legally insufficient. 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 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]). [*2]Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

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