Opinion
June 24, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A motion to restore an action to the trial calendar must be supported by a proper certificate of readiness and by affidavits showing an excuse for the delay in prosecution and demonstrating the merits of the action (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [f]; Fidelity Deposit Co. v Andersen Co., 60 N.Y.2d 693; Balducci v Jason, 133 A.D.2d 436; Baumgartner v Foodarama Supermarkets, 86 A.D.2d 590).
It was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to demonstrate that their action was meritorious through submission of an evidentiary affidavit of a person competent to attest thereto (see, Wulster v Rubinstein, 126 A.D.2d 545). The two affidavits submitted by the plaintiffs' doctors stated that the failure to perform a voiding cystourethrogram was the omission constituting the negligence claimed. This would have been sufficient but for the defendant's submission of the hospital records showing that this procedure was performed. As entries made in a hospital record relevant to diagnosis and treatment qualify for admission as prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein under the statutory business records rule (see, CPLR 4518 [c]; 2306; Wilson v Bodian, 130 A.D.2d 221, 229), the affidavits of the plaintiffs' physicians fail to set forth a meritorious cause of action concerning the alleged malpractice of the defendant. As such, we find that the Supreme Court properly declined to restore the case to the trial calendar. Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.