May 25, 2007
V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 51080(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/v-s-med-servs-p-c-v-new-york-cent-mut-ins-2007-ny-slip-op-51080u/
- Decided
- May 25, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 51080(U) · 15 Misc 3d 142(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 New York Cent. Mut. Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 51080(U))
| V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 51080(U) [15 Misc 3d 142(A)] |
| Decided on May 25, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 GOLIA, JJ
2006-654 Q C.
against
New York Central Mutual Insurance, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Gerald Dunbar, J.), entered January 19, 2006. 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, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment finding that there was an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s bill used an improper code. The instant appeal by plaintiff ensued.
On appeal, defendant asserts that the affidavit by 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, albeit on other grounds.
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 25, 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 showing because its corporate officer's affidavit did not establish personal knowledge of the provider's practices and procedures to lay a business-records foundation for the annexed documents.
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.
- 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 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 Farm Family Ins. (2007 NY Slip Op 52287(U))The provider's summary judgment proof lacked a proper business-record foundation because its officer's personal knowledge was not established.
- V.S. Med. Servs., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52553(U))A billing provider cannot recover direct assigned no-fault payments for services rendered by independent contractors rather than its employees.
- Midwood Med. Equip. Supply, Inc. v NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50670(U))The provider's officer affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation, defeating its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.
- IVB Med. Supply, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51081(U))The provider failed to establish its prima facie case because its officer's affidavit did not lay a business-records foundation.