Opinion
2006-1659 K C.
Decided on January 7, 2008.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Delores J. Thomas, J.), entered July 31, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its claim for $912.
Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed with $10 costs.
PRESENT: WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ.
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 an officer of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff's officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff's motion papers were plaintiff's business records. The court below denied the motion, finding that the affidavit executed by plaintiff's officer was insufficient to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff's moving papers and that defendant also raised an issue of fact as to medical necessity. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.
Since 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 ( 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, insofar as appealed from, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, should be affirmed.
Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.