A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Deerbrook Ins. Co.

[*1] A.M. Med. Servs., P.C. v Deerbrook Ins. Co. 2007 NY Slip Op 51610(U) [16 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on August 16, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 16, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2006-803 Q C.

A.M. Medical Services, P.C. as assignee of Kaleriya Bulakh, Appellant,

against

Deerbrook Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Thomas D. Raffaele, J.), entered February 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, inter alia, that plaintiff's moving
papers did not proffer facts in admissible form so as to establish plaintiff's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court denied plaintiff's motion, holding that there was an issue of fact as to whether the services were rendered by an independent contractor. The instant appeal by plaintiff ensued.

Since 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 [*2]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, the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, albeit on other grounds.

In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Pesce, P.J., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 16, 2007