March 28, 2007
Midwood Med. Equip. Supply, Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50670(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/midwood-med-equip-supply-inc-v-ny-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50670u/
- Decided
- March 28, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 50670(U) · 15 Misc 3d 131(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 Midwood Med. Equip. Supply, Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50670(U))
| Midwood Med. Equip. Supply, Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 50670(U) [15 Misc 3d 131(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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ
2006-353 K C.
against
NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (George J. Silver, J.), entered December 15, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed without costs and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied.
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. The court below granted the motion and the instant appeal by defendant ensued.
On appeal, defendant contends that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate officer, submitted in support of the motion, 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. The affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s corporate officer was insufficient to establish that said officer [*2]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. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Deerbrook Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50179[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, the branch of the order which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is reversed and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied.
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 28, 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
Reversed summary judgment for the provider because its corporate officer's conclusory affidavit did not establish 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.
- Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Deerbrook Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50179(U)) FollowedThe insurer's challenge to the provider's business-records foundation was considered despite being raised for the first time on appeal.
- 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
- Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50152(U))The provider's corporate officer affidavit failed to establish a business-records foundation for the documents supporting summary judgment.
- Bedford Park Med. Practice, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50378(U))The provider's corporate officer failed to lay a business-records foundation, defeating the provider's prima facie summary judgment showing.
- V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 51080(U))The provider's summary judgment motion failed because its officer's affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation.
- Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50237(U))The provider's officer failed to establish personal knowledge sufficient to admit the claim documents as business records.
- Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50168(U))The provider's corporate officer affidavit failed to lay the business-records foundation needed to establish a prima facie case.