| Roman Chiropractic, P.C. v Law Off. of Moshe D. Fuld, P.C. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 50286(U) [18 Misc 3d 137(A)] |
| Decided on February 8, 2008 |
| 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Kathryn E.
Freed, J.), dated March 27, 2006. The order granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Order reversed without costs and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The court below granted the motion and the instant appeal by defendant ensued.
On appeal, defendant asserts that the affidavit by plaintiff's principal, 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 [*2]case. We agree. The affidavit submitted by plaintiff's principal was
insufficient to establish that he 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
2007]; 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 is denied.
In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
Pesce, P.J., and Rios, J., concur.
Decision Date: February 08, 2008