February 8, 2008

Quentin Med. Servs., P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50294(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff's employee laid a proper foundation for the admission of documents annexed to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court considered whether the employee possessed personal knowledge of the plaintiff's practices and procedures in order to establish a prima facie case. The court ultimately held that the affidavit submitted was insufficient to establish the employee's personal knowledge, and therefore, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. As a result, the judgment was reversed, the order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was vacated, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Quentin Med. Servs., P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50294(U))

Quentin Med. Servs., P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50294(U)) [*1]

Quentin Med. Servs., P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co.

2008 NY Slip Op 50294(U) [18 Misc 3d 137(A)]

Decided on February 8, 2008

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 8, 2008

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., and RIOS, J.
2006-1976 K C

Quentin Medical Services, P.C. a/a/o WAVENEY WILSON, JOSEPH H. CLEMENT, NICO BOBB, RUBIN ALEZY, VICTOR H. GUY and HEE LONG KIM, Respondent,
against
GEICO General Ins. Co., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sylvia G. Ash, J.), entered October 11, 2006, deemed from a judgment entered September 11, 2007 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 11, 2006 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,416.42.

Judgment reversed without costs, order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment vacated and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. A judgment was subsequently entered.
On appeal, defendant asserts that the affidavit by plaintiff’s employee, submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers and that, as a result, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. We agree. The affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s employee was insufficient to establish that said employee 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. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Deerbrook Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50179[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud [*2]Dists 2006]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
Pesce, P.J., and Rios, J., concur.
Decision Date: February 08, 2008