December 1, 2006

Mega Supply & Billing Inc. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52304(U))

Headnote

The relevant fact considered was that plaintiff's motion to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff's counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. The main issue decided was whether the affidavit by plaintiff's corporate officer was sufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff's practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission of the documents annexed to plaintiff's moving papers as business records. The court held that the affidavit submitted by plaintiff's corporate officer was insufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff's practices and procedures, and as a result, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment. Therefore, the order was affirmed without costs.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Mega Supply & Billing Inc. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52304(U))

Mega Supply & Billing Inc. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52304(U)) [*1]
Mega Supply & Billing Inc. v Auto One Ins. Co.
2006 NY Slip Op 52304(U) [13 Misc 3d 143(A)]
Decided on December 1, 2006
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 1, 2006

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT:: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2005-1997 K C. NO. 2005-1997 K C
Mega Supply and Billing Inc. A/A/O Kimberly Chance, Appellant,

against

Auto One Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lila Gold, J.), entered November 9, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order, insofar as appealed from, 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 a corporate officer of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s corporate officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s
business records. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment and opposed plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. Insofar as is relevant, in opposition,
defendant argued, inter alia, that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate officer 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 so much of the order as denied 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 [*2]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 Medical, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., ___ Misc 3d ___, 2006 NY Slip Op ____ [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists] decided herewith).

Pesce, P.J., and Belen, J., concur.

Golia, J., concurs in a separate memorandum.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ.
MEGA SUPPLY AND BILLING INC.
A/A/O KIMBERLY CHANCE,

Appellant,

-against-
AUTO ONE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Respondent.

Golia, J., concurs with the result only, in the following memorandum:

While I agree with the ultimate disposition in the decision reached by the majority, I wish to emphasize that I am constrained to agree with certain propositions of law set forth in cases cited therein which are inconsistent with my prior expressed positions and generally contrary to my views.
Decision Date: December 1, 2006