Capri Med., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

[*1] Capri Med., P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. 2007 NY Slip Op 51158(U) [15 Misc 3d 143(A)] Decided on June 1, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 1, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : GOLIA, J.P., RIOS AND BELEN, JJ
2006-648 Q C.

Capri Medical, P.C. a/a/o Edouard Kourtchakox, Appellant,

against

Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered on March 22, 2005. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment.

Order modified by denying defendant's cross motion for summary judgment; as so modified, 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 "affidavit" by a corporate officer of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. We agree with the court's
conclusion that the "affidavit" suffered from multiple defects, such that it cannot be determined that the affidavit was properly sworn to, thereby rendering it insufficient to establish plaintiff's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Consequently, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment was premised upon the allegation that plaintiff's assignor was injured, if at all, in a staged accident. However, defendant did not prove, as a matter of law, that the alleged injuries did not arise out of an insured incident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]; Zuckerman v City of New [*2]York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). As a result, defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment should have been denied.

Golia, J.P., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.