February 27, 2007
Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50377(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/mega-supply-billing-inc-v-clarendon-natl-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50377u/
- Decided
- February 27, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 50377(U) · 14 Misc 3d 143(A)
- Posture
- Summary judgment
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Legal questions
- Claimant's prima facie case on motions (see the maps)
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50377(U))
| Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 50377(U) [14 Misc 3d 143(A)] |
| Decided on February 27, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2006-271 K C.
against
Clarendon National Insurance Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jack M. Battaglia, J.), entered December 8, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order affirmed without costs.
In this action 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. 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 the denial of 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 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]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
Weston Patterson, J.P., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 27, 2007
Legal questions
A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?
This decision: Insufficient: claim forms not shown admissible as business records / merits of claim not proved
Held the provider failed its prima facie showing because its corporate officer's conclusory affidavit did not show personal knowledge of the provider's practices to lay a business-records foundation for the annexed documents.
Of the 1,065 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 208 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26483) FollowedThe provider failed to establish its prima facie case because its corporate officer did not lay a business-records foundation for the claim documents.
Similar decisions
- Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50023(U))The provider's corporate officer affidavit lacked the personal-knowledge foundation necessary to admit its documents as business records.
- Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Allstate Indemnity Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51515(U))The provider's summary judgment award was reversed because its employee's affidavit did not establish admissibility of the claim forms.
- Mega Supply & Billing Inc. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52304(U))The provider's corporate officer failed to establish personal knowledge sufficient to authenticate the motion exhibits as business records.
- Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52504(U))Neither party established summary judgment entitlement because the provider failed to prove claim mailing and the insurer failed to prove timely denial.
- Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50375(U))The provider failed to authenticate its supporting documents as business records through an officer with the required personal knowledge.