February 27, 2007
Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50377(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50377(U))
Mega Supply & Billing, Inc. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. |
2007 NY Slip Op 50377(U) [14 Misc 3d 143(A)] |
Decided on February 27, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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
2006-271 K C.
against
Clarendon National Insurance Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jack M. Battaglia, J.), entered December 8, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order affirmed without costs.
In this action 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. 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 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 (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.
Weston Patterson, J.P., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 27, 2007