June 2, 2009

Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51129(U))

Headnote

The court considered a motion for summary judgment in an action by medical providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs' medical biller was legally sufficient. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the affidavit failed to establish that the documents annexed to the moving papers were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518. As a result, the plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment, and their motion was properly denied. Therefore, the holding of the case was that the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51129(U))

Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51129(U)) [*1]

Inwood Hill Med., P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co.

2009 NY Slip Op 51129(U) [23 Misc 3d 145(A)]

Decided on June 2, 2009

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 2, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and MOLIA, JJ
2008-1439 N C.

Inwood Hill Medical, P.C. and WESTCHESTER NEURODIAGNOSTIC, P.C. a/a/o LENNY MUNOZ, Appellants,
against
Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Rhonda E. Fischer, J.), entered May 19, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

In this action by providers to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion on the ground that the affidavit submitted by plaintiffs’ medical biller was legally insufficient. This appeal by plaintiffs ensued.

Plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment since the affidavit submitted by plaintiffs’ medical biller failed to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiffs’ moving papers were admissible pursuant to CPLR 4518 (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; Fortune Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 136[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50243[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Consequently, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: June 02, 2009