November 21, 2007
V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v Farm Family Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 52287(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/v-s-med-servs-p-c-v-farm-family-ins-2007-ny-slip-op-52287u/
- Decided
- November 21, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 52287(U) · 17 Misc 3d 136(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 V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v Farm Family Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 52287(U))
| V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v Farm Family Ins. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 52287(U) [17 Misc 3d 136(A)] |
| Decided on November 21, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2006-1361 Q C.
against
Farm Family Insurance, Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Bernice Daun Siegal, J.), entered April 6, 2005, deemed an appeal from a judgment entered June 29, 2006 (CPLR 5520 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the April 6, 2005 order granting plaintiff’s motion for reargument and, upon reargument, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,424.81.
Judgment reversed without costs, so much of the order as, upon granting plaintiff’s motion for reargument, granted 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 denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for reargument and, upon reargument, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. A judgment was subsequently entered. The instant appeal by defendant ensued.
On appeal, defendant asserts that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate officer, 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 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]; [*2]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 is denied.
In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 21, 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, so summary judgment in its favor was reversed, because its officer's affidavit did not lay a business-records foundation for the annexed documents.
Of the 1,063 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.
- Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Deerbrook Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50179(U)) FollowedThe insurer's challenge to the provider's business-records foundation was considered despite being raised for the first time on appeal.
- 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
- V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 51080(U))The provider's summary judgment motion failed because its officer's affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation.
- V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50400(U))The provider failed to prove claim submission because its corporate officer's affidavit lacked a sufficient business-records foundation.
- V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v One Beacon Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 50369(U))The insurer failed to prove timely mailing of its denials, while the provider failed to establish a business-records 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.
- 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.