December 1, 2006

PDG Psychological P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52305(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pdg-psychological-p-c-v-eveready-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-52305u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: December 1, 2006
Citation: 2006 NY Slip Op 52305(U) · 13 Misc 3d 143(A)
Posture: Summary judgment
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Later treatment: Followed in 1 later decision (see Cited by)
Issues: Provider's prima facie case
Legal questions: Claimant's prima facie case on motions (see the maps)

Cite as

PDG Psychological P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 143(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 52305(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006)

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.

The provider failed to establish a business-record foundation for its claim forms through its corporate officer's affidavit. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the provider's motion for summary judgment seeking assigned no-fault benefits. Among the affidavit's deficiencies, the officer did not demonstrate sufficient personal knowledge of the provider's office practices concerning the claims to establish admissibility under CPLR 4518, a defect the insurer raised in opposition. The provider therefore failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the court reached no other issue.

Reported in New York Official Reports at PDG Psychological P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52305(U))

[*1]

PDG Psychological P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co.

2006 NY Slip Op 52305(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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., WESTON PATTERSON and BELEN, JJ
2005-2019 Q C.

PDG Psychological P.C. A/A/O Frantz Jacques, Appellant,
against
Eveready Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Bernice Daun Siegal, J.), entered May 27, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and awarded defendant $50 costs.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment in which it sought to recover the sum of $1,947.92. Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law due to various deficiencies in the affidavit of plaintiff’s “corporate officer” in
support of plaintiff’s motion, including, as defendant raised in opposition to the motion, the fact that said officer did not demonstrate that he had sufficient personal knowledge concerning plaintiff’s office practices with regard to the subject claims so as to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the annexed claim forms as business records (see CPLR 4518; see also Dan Medical, P.C. v New York Central Mut. Fire Ins. Co., ____ Misc 3d _____, 2006 NY Slip Op _________ [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Therefore, the court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In light of the determination herein, we reach no other issue. [*2]

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 1, 2006

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.

Claimant's prima facie case on motions

Open the full map

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 did not show sufficient personal knowledge of its office practices to lay a business-records foundation for the annexed claim forms.

Proof sufficientMailing/receipt not shownOverdue not shownBusiness-record foundation lackingOther element missingThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

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 by

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

Bronxborough Med., P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51485(U)) FollowedThe provider failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment through admissible business records.

Similar decisions

Psychological Practice, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51304(U))The provider's owner failed to establish the personal knowledge needed to admit the documents supporting summary judgment.
PDG Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50436(U))The provider's trial witnesses failed to establish a business-record foundation for its bill under CPLR 4518.
PDG Psychological P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 50246(U))A provider may rely on denial forms annexed to an insurer's motion to establish the insurer's receipt of the claims.
PDG Psychological, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51757(U))The insurer's unrefuted need for discovery on licensing defeated the provider's summary judgment motion.
PDG Psychological, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50437(U))The provider failed to prove its prima facie case at trial because its witness could not establish a business-record foundation for the claim forms.