November 20, 2007

Walter Karpinski Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 52280(U))

Headnote

The Appellate Term, Second Department made a decision on November 20, 2007 in the case of Walter Karpinski Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. The main issue in the case was whether the provider had established a prima facie case to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The court considered the affidavit by the plaintiff's officer, which stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to the motion papers were the plaintiff's business records. The court held that the affidavit submitted by the plaintiff's officer was insufficient to establish that the officer possessed personal knowledge of the plaintiff's practices and procedures, so as to lay a foundation for the admission of the documents as business records. As a result, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Walter Karpinski Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 52280(U))

Walter Karpinski Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 52280(U)) [*1]
Walter Karpinski Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 52280(U) [17 Misc 3d 135(A)]
Decided on November 20, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 20, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-1902 K C.
Walter Karpinski Acupuncture, P.C. a/a/o Mona Petion, Appellant,

against

Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard Velasquez, J.), entered August 24, 2006. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed with $10 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. In
opposition, defendant argued, inter alia, that the affidavit by plaintiff’s officer 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.

Since the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s 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, 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]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. [*2]

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 20, 2007