March 26, 2007

W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50615(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court in this case include the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff's motion was supported by an affirmation from their counsel, an affidavit by an officer of the plaintiff, and various documents annexed to the motion papers. However, the court found that the affidavit executed by the plaintiff's officer was insufficient to establish personal knowledge of the plaintiff's practices and procedures, and therefore failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff had made a sufficient showing of entitlement to summary judgment, and the court held that they had not. The appeal from the order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the order was affirmed without costs. The court also dismissed the appeal from the order entered February 22, 2006, as the plaintiff had raised no issue with respect to that order.

Reported in New York Official Reports at W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50615(U))

W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50615(U)) [*1]
W.H.O. Acupuncture, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 50615(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on March 26, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and LaCAVA, JJ
2006-700 N C.
W.H.O. ACUPUNCTURE, P.C. a/a/o Samantha Y. Bryson, Appellant,

against

ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, Third District (Randy Sue Marber, J.), dated September 30, 2005, and from an order of the same court, entered February 22, 2006. The order dated September 30, 2005, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The order entered February 22, 2006 denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order dated September 30, 2006 and to renew plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Appeal from order entered February 22, 2006 dismissed.

Order dated September 30, 2005, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider 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 an officer of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s business records. By order dated September 30, 2005, the court below denied the motion on the ground, inter alia, that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case because the affidavit executed by plaintiff’s corporate officer failed to set forth facts sufficient to demonstrate personal knowledge of the facts set forth therein. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff also appeals from the order entered February 22, 2006 which denied its motion to vacate the September 30, 2005 order and to renew [*2]its motion for summary judgment.

Since 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 proper foundation for the admissibility, 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 Fortune Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., ____ Misc 3d ____[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50243[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th 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, the order dated September 30, 2005 properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

To the extent plaintiff also appeals from the order entered February 22, 2006, plaintiff has raised no issue with respect thereto and, thus, said appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 26, 2007