Opinion
2007-828 Q C.
Decided May 27, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered April 25, 2007. The judgment, entered pursuant to an order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $8,000.
Judgment reversed without costs, order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment vacated and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, 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 affidavit executed byplaintiff, an affirmation of plaintiff's counsel and various documents annexed thereto. Plaintiff's counsel submitted a copy of plaintiff's claim form and purported to authenticate it. In opposition, defendant argued that plaintiff's counsel did not lay a sufficient foundation to establish that what counsel represented to be plaintiff's claim form was admissible as plaintiff's business record. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. A judgment was subsequently entered pursuant thereto. This appeal by defendant ensued.
On appeal, defendant reiterates its argument that plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing because plaintiff failed to establish the admissibility of the claim form annexed to plaintiff's moving papers. We agree. The affirmation of plaintiff's counsel did not lay a sufficient foundation to establish that what counsel represented to be plaintiff's claim form was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518; Midborough Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 13 Misc 3d 132[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51879[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should have been denied.
We decline defendant's request to search the record and award it summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see e.g. New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co. , 39 AD3d 832 ).
Pesce, P.J., and Steinhardt, J., concur.
Golia, J., concurs in a separate memorandum.
While I agree with the ultimate disposition in the decision reached by the majority, I wish to note that I am constrained to agree with certain propositions of law set forth in cases cited therein which are inconsistent with my prior expressed positions and generally contrary to my views.