March 26, 2007
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50604(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50604(U))
Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co. |
2007 NY Slip Op 50604(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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2006-264 K C.
against
Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), dated December 6, 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 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. 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 was legally insufficient. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of 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 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 (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; see Dan Med., P.C. v New [*2]York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44,
2006 NY Slip Op 26483 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
Weston Patterson, J.P., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 26, 2007