April 2, 2007
Preferred Med. Imaging, P.C. v Hudson Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50685(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/preferred-med-imaging-p-c-v-hudson-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50685u/
- Decided
- April 2, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 50685(U) · 15 Misc 3d 132(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 Preferred Med. Imaging, P.C. v Hudson Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50685(U))
| Preferred Med. Imaging, P.C. v Hudson Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 50685(U) [15 Misc 3d 132(A)] |
| Decided on April 2, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2006-343 K C.
against
Hudson Insurance Company, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dolores L. Waltrous, J.), entered January 6, 2006. The order granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order 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 an employee of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s employee 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 employee 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 court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and this appeal by defendant ensued.
On appeal, defendant reiterates its argument that plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing because plaintiff failed to establish the admissibility of the claim forms annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers. Inasmuch as the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s employee was insufficient to establish that said employee possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s practices [*2]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., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied.
To the extent defendant asks this court to search the record and grant it summary judgment, defendant is not entitled to such relief since, among other things, the record does not contain any proof that defendant’s denials were timely issued.
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 02, 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 case because its employee's conclusory affidavit did not show personal knowledge of the provider's practices sufficient to lay a business-records foundation for the claim forms.
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
- Preferred Med. Imaging, P.C. v Countrywide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50693(U))The provider failed to establish a business-records foundation for its claim forms and therefore failed to make a prima facie showing.
- Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50602(U))The provider's summary judgment showing failed for lack of a business-records foundation, and its discovery appeal concerned a default order.
- A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50671(U))The provider failed to make a prima facie showing because its officer's affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation.
- Bedford Park Med. Practice, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50289(U))The provider's cross motion for summary judgment failed because its corporate officer did not lay a business-record foundation.
- A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Deerbrook Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51610(U))The provider failed to establish a prima facie case because its officer's affidavit did not lay a business-record foundation.