January 26, 2007

Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50152(U))

Headnote

The court considered the evidence presented in the form of an affirmation from plaintiff's counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of plaintiff, and various supporting documents. The main issue was whether plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits should be granted. The court held that the affidavit executed by plaintiff's corporate officer was insufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff's practices and procedures to lay a foundation for the admission of the documents annexed to plaintiff's moving papers as business records. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50152(U))

Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50152(U)) [*1]
Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 50152(U) [14 Misc 3d 134(A)]
Decided on January 26, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 26, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2006-294 K C.
Fair Price Medical Supply Corp., a/a/o VYACHESLAV GORELIK, Appellant,

against

Tri-State Consumer Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arlene Bluth, J.), entered November 29, 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. In opposition, defendant argued, inter alia, that plaintiff’s moving papers failed to establish plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. 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, the court correctly held that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. [*2]Fire Ins. Co., ___ Misc 3d ___, 2006 NY Slip Op 26483 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 26, 2007