September 21, 2006
Pine Hollow Med., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51870(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Pine Hollow Med., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 51870(U))
| Pine Hollow Med., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. |
| 2006 NY Slip Op 51870(U) [13 Misc 3d 131(A)] |
| Decided on September 21, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and BELEN, JJ
2005-1225 K C.
against
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Bernadette F. Bayne, J.), entered March 8, 2004. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,499.64.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
At the trial of this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services provided plaintiff’s assignor, plaintiff’s witness, an employee of its billing company, testified to the company’s business practices in generating and mailing no-fault benefits applications to insurers based upon information received from its clients,
the providers of the medical services. Defendant objected below that the witness was incompetent to establish the reliability, prima facie, of the information recorded therein. However, it is well-settled that where an entity “routinely relies upon the business records of another entity in the performance of its own business” (West Val. Fire Dist. No. 1 v Village of Springville, 294 AD2d 949, 950 [2002]; see People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d 547, 548 [2001]), and “fully incorporate[s]” said information into records made in the regular course of its business (Plymouth Rock Fuel Corp. v Leucadia, Inc., 117 AD2d 727, 728 [1986]), the subsequent record is admissible notwithstanding that the preparer lacked personal knowledge of the information’s [*2]accuracy (William Conover, Inc. v Waldorf, 251 AD2d 727, 728 [1998]). The lack of knowledge goes “to the weight, not the admissibility” of the record (id.).
Plaintiff otherwise established the business record foundation for the admission of the records produced on the basis of the information imparted by plaintiff to the billing company (CPLR 4518 [a]; People v DiSalvo, 284 AD2d at 548), that said information was maintained in the regular course of plaintiff’s business, and that plaintiff had a business duty to impart that information to the billing company (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 90 [1995]).
Defendant’s argument with respect to the proof of assignment is likewise without merit. Defendant admits that “there is proof that some assignment of benefit form was mailed and received” and that its claim denial form records that plaintiff sought no-fault benefits “as [the eligible injured person’s] assignee.” Having received such a form, it was defendant’s burden to timely object to the completeness of the form or seek verification of the fact of the assignment, and its failure to do so waived any defenses based thereon (see Hospital for Joint Diseases v Allstate Ins. Co., 21 AD3d 348 [2005]; New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 640 [2004]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 70 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]).
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Belen, JJ., concur.