April 21, 2008

Executive MRI Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50902(U))

Headnote

The court considered the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's corporate officer in support of their motion for summary judgment, which failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the documents annexed to the moving papers. The main issue decided was whether the affidavit was sufficient to establish personal knowledge of the plaintiff's practices and procedures to lay a foundation for the admission of the documents as business records. The holding was that the affidavit submitted was insufficient, and as a result, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment. Therefore, the court reversed the order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the motion.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Executive MRI Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50902(U))

Executive MRI Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50902(U)) [*1]
Executive MRI Imaging, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co.
2008 NY Slip Op 50902(U) [19 Misc 3d 140(A)]
Decided on April 21, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on April 21, 2008

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2006-2073 K C.
Executive MRI Imaging, P.C. as assignee of Roman Nozadze, Respondent,

against

State Farm Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Bernard J. Graham, J.), entered October 19, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed without costs 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 and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The instant appeal by defendant ensued in which the sole issue raised involves the granting of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, defendant asserts that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate 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 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. 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 & [*2]11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 21, 2008