March 26, 2007
Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v General Assur. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50613(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/vista-surgical-supplies-inc-v-general-assur-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50613u/
- Court
- Appellate Term, Second Department
- Decided
- March 26, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 50613(U) · 15 Misc 3d 129(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 Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v General Assur. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50613(U))
[*1]| Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v General Assur. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 50613(U) [15 Misc 3d 129(A)] |
| Decided on March 26, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2006-640 K C.
against
GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Delores J. Thomas, J.), entered January 24, 2006. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order affirmed without costs.
In this action by a provider of medical supplies to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff’s counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s corporate officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. In opposition, defendant argued that the affidavit by
plaintiff’s corporate officer was insufficient to establish personal knowledge of the facts set forth therein because the corporate officer did not demonstrate that he possessed sufficient personal knowledge of plaintiff’s office practices and procedures to lay a proper foundation to establish that the documents submitted by plaintiff were admissible pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518). The court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and this appeal ensued.
Inasmuch as 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 [*2]as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 26, 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 claimant failed its prima facie case because its officer's conclusory affidavit did not show personal knowledge of the claimant's practices sufficient to lay a business-records foundation under CPLR 4518 for the annexed documents.
Of the 990 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 206 (this one included) are in the same category.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- 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
- Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Progressive Cas. (2007 NY Slip Op 50695(U))The provider's summary judgment proof failed because its corporate officer did not establish a foundation for the attached business records.
- Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50939(U))The provider failed to establish a prima facie case because its officer's affidavit lacked a sufficient business-records foundation.
- Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50502(U))The provider's officer failed to establish personal knowledge sufficient to admit the motion's supporting documents as business records.
- Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50688(U))The provider failed to make a prima facie showing because its officer's affidavit did not establish a business-records foundation.
- Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50605(U))The provider's summary judgment showing failed for lack of a business-records foundation, an objection first raised on appeal.