February 27, 2009

Velen Med. Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50343(U))

Headnote

The court considered the issue of whether the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff's billing manager laid a proper foundation for the admission of the documents annexed to the plaintiff's moving papers in a no-fault benefits case. The plaintiff had brought an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, and the court had granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. However, the court found that the affidavit submitted was insufficient to demonstrate the billing manager's personal knowledge of the plaintiff's practices and procedures, and therefore failed to establish a prima facie case. As a result, the court reversed the judgment, vacated the order granting summary judgment to the plaintiff, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and remanded the matter to the lower court for further proceedings.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Velen Med. Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50343(U))

Velen Med. Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 50343(U)) [*1]
Velen Med. Supply, Inc. v Country-Wide Ins. Co.
2009 NY Slip Op 50343(U) [22 Misc 3d 138(A)]
Decided on February 27, 2009
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 27, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2007-1406 Q C.
Velen Medical Supply, Inc. as assignee of JOHANNA TYSON, Respondent,

against

Country-Wide Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered August 13, 2007, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered August 30, 2007 (see CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the August 13, 2007 order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,131.

Judgment reversed without costs, so much of the order as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment vacated, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied, and matter remanded to the Civil Court for all further proceedings.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The instant appeal by defendant ensued. A judgment was subsequently entered.

On appeal, defendant argues that the affidavit by plaintiff’s billing manager, 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 billing manager was insufficient to demonstrate that she possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s [*2]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 Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 15 Misc 3d 144[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51161[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007], affd 55 AD3d 644 [2008]; 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 Dists 2006]). Consequently, the judgment is reversed, so much of the
order as granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is vacated, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. We note that no issue is raised with respect to the denial of defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 27, 2009