Carothers v. GEICO Indemnity Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carothers v. GEICO Indemnity Co.

79 A.D.3d 864, 914 N.Y.S.2d 199

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 14, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 864 (Carothers v. GEICO Indemnity Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carothers v. GEICO Indemnity Co., 79 A.D.3d 864, 914 N.Y.S.2d 199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under certain insurance contracts, the plaintiff appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, dated April 14, 2009, which reversed a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Graham, J.), entered August 2, 2007, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded the plaintiff the principal sum of $4,463.17, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order dated April 14, 2009, is affirmed, with costs.

The testimony of an employee of the company that handled the plaintiffs medical billing was insufficient to lay a foundation for the admission of the claim forms under the business records exception of the hearsay rule (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]). Such records were inadmissible because the billing company did not create the records and there was no showing that its employee was familiar with the particular record-keeping procedures of the plaintiff (see West Val. Fire Dist. No. 1 v Village of Springville, 294 AD2d 949, 950 [2002]). Further, although a [865]*865proper foundation can be established by a recipient of records who does not have personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures, there must still be a showing that the recipient either incorporated the records into its own records or relied upon the records in its day-to-day operations (see People v A & S DiSalvo Co., 284 AD2d 547, 548 [2001]; Plymouth Rock Fuel Corp. v Leucadia, Inc., 117 AD2d 727 [1986]). Here, the billing company’s mere printing and mailing of the documents to the insurer did not establish that the documents were incorporated into its records or that it relied upon the records in its regular course of business (see Lodato v Greyhawk N. Am., LLC, 39 AD3d 494,495 [2007]). Since the subject documents were inadmissible, the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie case, and the Appellate Term properly reversed the judgment in the plaintiffs favor.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Angiolillo and Austin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments under certain insurance contracts, the plaintiff appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, dated April 14, 2009, which reversed a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Graham, J.), entered August 2, 2007, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded the plaintiff the principal sum of $4,463.17, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order dated April 14, 2009, is affirmed, with costs.

The testimony of an employee of the company that handled the plaintiffs medical billing was insufficient to lay a foundation for the admission of the claim forms under the business records exception of the hearsay rule (see Art of Healing Medicine, P.C. v Travelers Home & Mar. Ins. Co., 55 AD3d 644 [2008]). Such records were inadmissible because the billing company did not create the records and there was no showing that its employee was familiar with the particular record-keeping procedures of the plaintiff (see West Val. Fire Dist. No. 1 v Village of Springville, 294 AD2d 949, 950 [2002]). Further, although a [865]*865proper foundation can be established by a recipient of records who does not have personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures, there must still be a showing that the recipient either incorporated the records into its own records or relied upon the records in its day-to-day operations (see People v A & S DiSalvo Co., 284 AD2d 547, 548 [2001]; Plymouth Rock Fuel Corp. v Leucadia, Inc., 117 AD2d 727 [1986]). Here, the billing company’s mere printing and mailing of the documents to the insurer did not establish that the documents were incorporated into its records or that it relied upon the records in its regular course of business (see Lodato v Greyhawk N. Am., LLC, 39 AD3d 494,495 [2007]). Since the subject documents were inadmissible, the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie case, and the Appellate Term properly reversed the judgment in the plaintiffs favor.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Angiolillo and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 864, 914 N.Y.S.2d 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carothers-v-geico-indemnity-co-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack