March 28, 2007
Great Wall Acupuncture v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50676(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Great Wall Acupuncture v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50676(U))
Great Wall Acupuncture v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. |
2007 NY Slip Op 50676(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ
2006-479 K C.
against
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Milagros A. Matos, J.), entered December 22, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, 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 employee of plaintiff and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s employee 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 employee was insufficient to establish that said employee 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 (see Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, [*2]2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 28, 2007