March 2, 2007
Fortune Med., P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50388(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Fortune Med., P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50388(U))
Fortune Med., P.C. v Kemper Ins. Co. |
2007 NY Slip Op 50388(U) [14 Misc 3d 144(A)] |
Decided on March 2, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2006-154 Q C.
against
Kemper Insurance Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered March 18, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order 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 denied plaintiff’s motion on the ground that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case because, among other things, plaintiff did not lay a sufficient foundation to establish that the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers constituted evidence in admissible form. 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 York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., ___ Misc 3d ___,
2006 NY Slip Op 26483 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
[*2]
Weston Patterson, J.P., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 2, 2007