Impulse Chiropractic, P.C. v Countrywide Ins.

[*1] Impulse Chiropractic, P.C. v Countrywide Ins. 2007 NY Slip Op 52293(U) [17 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on November 21, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 21, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-1843 Q C.

Impulse Chiropractic, P.C. as assignee of Anna Sandoval, Appellant,

against

Countrywide Insurance, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered June 28, 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 from an officer of plaintiff and various documents annexed thereto. In opposition, defendant argued, inter alia, that the affidavit by plaintiff's officer failed to demonstrate personal knowledge of the facts set forth therein and that, as a result,
plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The court below denied the motion on the ground that defendant's denials were timely and were sufficient to raise a question of fact as to medical necessity. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

Inasmuch as 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, the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, albeit on other grounds.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 21, 2007