February 26, 2007
Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50367(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50367(U))
Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v GEICO Ins. Co. |
2007 NY Slip Op 50367(U) [14 Misc 3d 142(A)] |
Decided on February 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-324 K C.
against
GEICO Insurance Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Delores J. Thomas, J.), entered January 24, 2006. 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 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, in effect, that said affidavit was
vague, and plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The court below denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment based on plaintiff’s failure to make out a prima facie case. The instant appeal by plaintiff ensued. 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]). In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the parties’ remaining contentions.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
[*2]
Decision Date: February 26, 2007