Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Country Carting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Country Carting Corp.

265 A.D.2d 158, 696 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9693

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 5, 1999·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered August 5, 1998, in an action to recover unpaid workers’ compensation premiums, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the principal amount of $399,833.88, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs unrebutted business records, which included the insurance application, audit worksheets and resulting invoices and statements of account for a balance due, were sufficient to make out a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Allou Distribs., 220 AD2d 217). Defendants’ claimed need for disclosure of plaintiffs assumptions and methodologies was properly rejected by the IAS Court in view of their prolonged inactivity prior to the motion, plaintiffs full explanation of the one apparent anomaly in its bills specifically challenged by defendants, and defendants’ failure to explain how plaintiffs bills do not reflect the audits signed by their accountant. We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered August 5, 1998, in an action to recover unpaid workers’ compensation premiums, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the principal amount of $399,833.88, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs unrebutted business records, which included the insurance application, audit worksheets and resulting invoices and statements of account for a balance due, were sufficient to make out a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Allou Distribs., 220 AD2d 217). Defendants’ claimed need for disclosure of plaintiffs assumptions and methodologies was properly rejected by the IAS Court in view of their prolonged inactivity prior to the motion, plaintiffs full explanation of the one apparent anomaly in its bills specifically challenged by defendants, and defendants’ failure to explain how plaintiffs bills do not reflect the audits signed by their accountant. We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Country Carting Corp., 265 A.D.2d 158, 696 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

265 A.D.2d 158 (Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Country Carting Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related