September 2, 2008
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51854(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/delta-diagnostic-radiology-p-c-v-unitrin-advantage-ins-co-2008-ny-slip-op51854u/
- Decided
- September 2, 2008
- Citation
- 2008 NY Slip Op 51854(U) · 20 Misc 3d 144(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- 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 Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51854(U))
| Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 51854(U) [20 Misc 3d 144(A)] |
| Decided on September 2, 2008 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and STEINHARDT, JJ
2007-508 K C.
against
Unitrin Advantage Insurance Company, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Loren Baily-Schiffman, J.), entered May 30, 2006, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered June 14, 2006 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the May 30, 2006 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,839.34.
Judgment reversed without costs, order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment vacated and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The instant appeal by defendant ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered.
On appeal, defendant asserts that the affidavit by plaintiff’s officer, submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers and that, as a result, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. We agree. The affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s officer was insufficient to demonstrate that he 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. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Deerbrook Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50179[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Dan Med. P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, the judgment is reversed, the order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is vacated and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. [*2]
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 02, 2008
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 the provider failed its prima facie case because its officer's affidavit did not show personal knowledge of the provider's practices and procedures sufficient to admit the annexed documents as business records.
Of the 1,063 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
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Deerbrook Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50179(U)) FollowedThe insurer's challenge to the provider's business-records foundation was considered despite being raised for the first time on appeal.
- Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26483) FollowedThe provider failed to establish its prima facie case because its corporate officer did not lay a business-records foundation for the claim documents.
Similar decisions
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v General Assur. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51616(U))The provider failed to establish a prima facie case because its corporate officer did not lay a foundation for the attached business records.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50087(U))The provider failed to establish its prima facie case because its officer's affidavit did not lay a business-records foundation.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50238(U))The provider's conclusory corporate officer affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation for summary judgment.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Statewide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50677(U))The provider's officer affidavit failed to establish a business-records foundation, leaving its prima facie summary judgment showing deficient.
- Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50246(U))The provider's corporate officer affidavit failed to establish the business-records foundation needed for a prima facie case.