November 20, 2007
Walter Karpinski Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 52280(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at Walter Karpinski Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 52280(U))
Walter Karpinski Acupuncture, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. |
2007 NY Slip Op 52280(U) [17 Misc 3d 135(A)] |
Decided on November 20, 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-1902 K C.
against
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard Velasquez, J.), entered August 24, 2006. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Order affirmed with $10 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. In
opposition, defendant argued, inter alia, that the affidavit by plaintiff’s 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.
Since the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s 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., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. [*2]
Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 20, 2007