March 28, 2007

Great Wall Acupuncture v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50676(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts the court considered were that Great Wall Acupuncture was seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. 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. The main issue decided was whether plaintiff's moving papers established plaintiff's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The holding of the case was that the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's employee was insufficient to establish that the employee had personal knowledge of plaintiff's practices and procedures, and therefore, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment. The denial of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was affirmed without costs.

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)) [*1]
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on March 28, 2007

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.
Great Wall Acupuncture a/a/o CARLOS HERNANDEZ and RAQUEL FRAGOSA CAMAC, Appellant,

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