Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.), entered July 11, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

In an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The court below denied the motion finding that defendant demonstrated the existence of an issue of fact. The instant appeal by plaintiff ensued.

On appeal, defendant asserts that the affidavit by plaintiff's corporate officer, submitted in support of the motion, 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 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. 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]; 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 [*2]other grounds.

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