February 26, 2007

Grigory v State Wide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50366(U))

Headnote

The court considered the appeal of Shtender Grigory, M.D., who sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Wide Ins. Co. The main issue was whether the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied by the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County. The court found that the affidavit submitted in support of the plaintiff's motion was insufficient to establish the affiant's personal knowledge of the plaintiff's practices and procedures, and therefore failed to lay a foundation for the admission of the documents as business records. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, and affirmed the denial of the motion without costs.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Grigory v State Wide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50366(U))

Grigory v State Wide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50366(U)) [*1]
Grigory v State Wide Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 50366(U) [14 Misc 3d 142(A)]
Decided on February 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 26, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-268 K C.
Shtender Grigory, M.D. a/a/o Michail Skakalskiy, Appellant,

against

State Wide Ins. Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Milagros A. Matos, J.), entered June 28, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action by a health care 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 someone who was either an “employee/shareholder” or an “employee of the company providing billing services for plaintiff,” and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit stated in conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. In opposition to the motion, defendant argued, inter alia, that the affidavit failed to lay a proper foundation for the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers and that, as a result, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

Inasmuch as the affidavit submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion was insufficient to establish that the affiant 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., 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., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: February 26, 2007