A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

[*1] A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. 2007 NY Slip Op 50671(U) [15 Misc 3d 131(A)] Decided on March 28, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 28, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:: PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ
2006-359 K C.

A.M. Medical Services, P.C. a/a/o GEORGE KOTSIS, Appellant,

against

Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dolores L. Waltrous, J.), entered January 6, 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, inter alia, that plaintiff's moving papers failed to establish plaintiff's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. 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., 14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Consequently, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied. [*2]

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 28, 2007