December 1, 2006
Mega Supply & Billing Inc. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52304(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Mega Supply & Billing Inc. v Auto One Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52304(U))
Mega Supply & Billing Inc. v Auto One Ins. Co. |
2006 NY Slip Op 52304(U) [13 Misc 3d 143(A)] |
Decided on December 1, 2006 |
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2005-1997 K C. NO. 2005-1997 K C
against
Auto One Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lila Gold, J.), entered November 9, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order, 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 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. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment and opposed plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. Insofar as is relevant, in opposition,
defendant argued, inter alia, that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate 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. Plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as denied its motion for summary judgment.
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 Medical, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., ___ Misc 3d ___, 2006 NY Slip Op ____ [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists] decided herewith).
Pesce, P.J., and Belen, J., concur.
Golia, J., concurs in a separate memorandum.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ.
MEGA SUPPLY AND BILLING INC.
A/A/O KIMBERLY CHANCE,
Appellant,
-against-
AUTO ONE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Respondent.
Golia, J., concurs with the result only, in the following memorandum:
While I agree with the ultimate disposition in the decision reached by the majority, I wish to emphasize that I am constrained to agree with certain propositions of law set forth in cases cited therein which are inconsistent with my prior expressed positions and generally contrary to my views.
Decision Date: December 1, 2006