July 24, 2007

Union Physician Health Care, P.C. v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51505(U))

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the plaintiff, a healthcare provider seeking to recover first-party no-fault benefits, was entitled to summary judgment. The defendant had timely denied the claims, and the court ruled that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff's corporate officer did not lay a proper foundation for the documents annexed to the moving papers. As a result, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case for entitlement to summary judgment. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of the motion for summary judgment, and the parties' remaining contentions were not addressed. Therefore, the holding of the case was that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Union Physician Health Care, P.C. v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51505(U))

Union Physician Health Care, P.C. v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51505(U)) [*1]

Union Physician Health Care, P.C. v American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.

2007 NY Slip Op 51505(U) [16 Misc 3d 134(A)]

Decided on July 24, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 24, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2005-1822 K C.

Union Physician Health Care, P.C. a/a/o Daniel Peysakhov, Appellant,
against
American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), entered September 9, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The court below denied the motion on the ground that defendant showed that it timely denied the claims. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, defendant asserts that the affidavit of plaintiff’s corporate officer, submitted in support of the motion, 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. We agree. The affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s corporate officer was insufficient to establish that said officer 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]; Dan Med., 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 light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions.Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 24, 2007