March 2, 2007

Fortune Med., P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50388(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the provider, Fortune Medical, P.C., was entitled to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Kemper Insurance Co. The court considered the evidence presented by Fortune Medical, including an affirmation from their counsel, an affidavit by an officer of the company, and various documents. However, the court found that the affidavit executed by the officer was insufficient to establish that the documents constituted admissible evidence as business records. As a result, the court held that Fortune Medical failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment, and the motion was properly denied. Therefore, the holding of the case was that the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Fortune Med., P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50388(U))

Fortune Med., P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50388(U)) [*1]
Fortune Med., P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 50388(U) [14 Misc 3d 144(A)]
Decided on March 2, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 2, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2006-154 Q C.
Fortune Medical, P.C. aao Cecilia Rodriguez, Appellant,

against

Kemper Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered March 18, 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 an officer of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. The court denied plaintiff’s motion on the ground that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case because, among other things, plaintiff 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 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., ___ Misc 3d ___,
2006 NY Slip Op 26483 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. [*2]

Weston Patterson, J.P., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 2, 2007