Opinion
2007-1850 Q C.
Decided December 4, 2008.
Appeal from a decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Leslie J. Purificacion, J.), dated June 29, 2007, deemed from a judgment of said court entered November 8, 2007 (see CPLR 5520 [c]). The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and GOLIA, JJ.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff served a notice to admit upon defendant and defendant served a response. At trial, plaintiff, without calling any witnesses, contended that it made a prima facie showing because its notice to admit sought admission of all facts relevant to its prima facie case and defendant's objections lacked merit. Plaintiff's notice to admit, to which the claim form at issue was annexed, and defendant's response were admitted into evidence, and the court heard oral arguments. Defendant did not call any witnesses, but argued that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing. The court held, inter alia, that plaintiff's notice to admit failed to establish a prima facie case. Judgment was entered dismissing the complaint, and this appeal by plaintiff ensued.
"A matter deemed admitted pursuant to a notice to admit . . . is still subject to all pertinent objections to admissibility which may be interposed at the trial' (CPLR 3123 [b]), and it is not necessarily of such probative value as to relieve a party of the necessity of establishing its right to ultimate relief upon the trial" ( Bajaj v General Assur. ,18 Misc 3d 25 , 27 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2007]). In Bajaj, this court held that where a party seeks to satisfy its burden of proof at trial by reference to a document, testimony is required to establish the admissibility of the document. In the instant case, as in Bajaj, plaintiff, by not calling a witness, failed to lay a foundation to demonstrate that its claim form, a necessary part of a provider's prima facie case ( A.M. Med. Servs. PLLC v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. ,7 Misc 3d 127[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50432[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2005]), was admissible as a business record ( see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Traveler's Home Mar. Ins. Co., ___ AD3d ___, 2008 NY Slip Op 07846 [2d Dept 2008]; Bajaj, 18 Misc 3d 25; Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. ,14 Misc 3d 44 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Golia, JJ., concur.