December 1, 2006

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

Headnote

The court considered the appeal of an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, which denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the recovery of assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the court held that the plaintiff failed to do so due to deficiencies in the affidavit of the plaintiff's "corporate officer" and a lack of sufficient personal knowledge concerning the plaintiff's office practices with regard to the subject claims. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment without costs, concluding that the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was proper. No other issues were considered in light of this determination.

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

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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