June 29, 2007
Psychological Practice, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51304(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/psychological-practice-p-c-v-ny-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-51304u/
- Court
- Appellate Term, Second Department
- Decided
- June 29, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 51304(U) · 16 Misc 3d 129(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 Psychological Practice, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51304(U))
| Psychological Practice, P.C. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 51304(U) [16 Misc 3d 129(A)] |
| Decided on June 29, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-508 K C.
against
NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arlene Bluth, J.), entered November 29, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order affirmed without costs.
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 plaintiff’s owner, and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s owner stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. The court below
denied the motion on the ground that plaintiff’s owner failed to set forth his job duties or the basis for his personal knowledge, if any, of plaintiff’s billing procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission of plaintiff’s business records. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.
Inasmuch as the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s owner was insufficient to establish that he 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, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see [*2]Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Dan Medical, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 29, 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 owner's conclusory affidavit did not establish personal knowledge of its practices needed to admit the annexed documents as business records.
Of the 990 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 206 (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
- PDG Psychological P.C. v Eveready Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52305(U))The provider failed to establish a business-record foundation for its claim forms through its corporate officer's affidavit.
- Psychology YM, P.C. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51634(U))The provider failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment because its billing company's affidavit did not comply with CPLR 4518.
- All Mental Care Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50537(U))The provider's officer failed to establish personal knowledge sufficient to admit the supporting documents as business records.
- 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. (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.