Quentin Med. Servs., P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. |
2008 NY Slip Op 50294(U) [18 Misc 3d 137(A)] |
Decided on February 8, 2008 |
Appellate Term, Second Department |
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. |
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Sylvia G.
Ash, J.), entered October 11, 2006, deemed from a judgment entered September 11, 2007 (see
CPLR 5501 [c]). The judgment, entered pursuant to the October 11, 2006 order granting
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,416.42.
Judgment reversed without costs, order granting plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment vacated and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, the court
granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. A judgment was subsequently entered.
On appeal, defendant asserts that the affidavit by plaintiff's employee, submitted in support
of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of
the documents annexed to plaintiff's moving papers and that, as a result, plaintiff failed to
establish a prima facie case. We agree. The affidavit submitted by plaintiff's employee was
insufficient to establish that said employee 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. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing
of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Deerbrook Ins.
Co., 14 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50179[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists
2007]; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term,
2d & 11th Jud [*2]Dists 2006]). Consequently, plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment is denied.
In view of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
Pesce, P.J., and Rios, J., concur.
Decision Date: February 08, 2008