CPT Medical Services, P.C. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

CPT Medical Services, P.C. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

18 Misc. 3d 87

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 19, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 Misc. 3d 87 (CPT Medical Services, P.C. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

CPT Medical Services, P.C. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance, 18 Misc. 3d 87 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[88]*88OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated June 16, 2006, reversed, with $10 costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted, and complaint dismissed. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment by submitting competent medical evidence, including a peer reviewer’s affidavit incorporating by reference the findings set forth in his earlier report, that the diagnostic testing giving rise to plaintiffs claim for first party no-fault benefits lacked medical necessity. In opposition, plaintiff relied upon an attorney’s affirmation accompanied by a single, unsworn and undated doctor’s report, which was not properly before the court and should not have been considered (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813 [1991]; Black v Regalado, 36 AD3d 437 [2007]; Henkin v Fast Times Taxi, 307 AD2d 814 [2003]). While a physician’s affirmation submitted in opposition to summary judgment may be based on an unsworn medical report (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 577 n 5 [2005]), an attorney’s affirmation augmented only by an unsworn medical report does not constitute admissible opposing evidence. In any event, even if considered, the unsworn report of plaintiffs doctor was insufficient to defeat summary judgment, since it failed to mention, much less meaningfully address, the negative diagnostic study separately administered during the month preceding the testing here at issue.

McKeon, J.E, McCooe and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

[88]*88OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated June 16, 2006, reversed, with $10 costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted, and complaint dismissed. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment by submitting competent medical evidence, including a peer reviewer’s affidavit incorporating by reference the findings set forth in his earlier report, that the diagnostic testing giving rise to plaintiffs claim for first party no-fault benefits lacked medical necessity. In opposition, plaintiff relied upon an attorney’s affirmation accompanied by a single, unsworn and undated doctor’s report, which was not properly before the court and should not have been considered (see Grasso v Angerami, 79 NY2d 813 [1991]; Black v Regalado, 36 AD3d 437 [2007]; Henkin v Fast Times Taxi, 307 AD2d 814 [2003]). While a physician’s affirmation submitted in opposition to summary judgment may be based on an unsworn medical report (see Pommells v Perez, 4 NY3d 566, 577 n 5 [2005]), an attorney’s affirmation augmented only by an unsworn medical report does not constitute admissible opposing evidence. In any event, even if considered, the unsworn report of plaintiffs doctor was insufficient to defeat summary judgment, since it failed to mention, much less meaningfully address, the negative diagnostic study separately administered during the month preceding the testing here at issue.

McKeon, J.E, McCooe and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Misc. 3d 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cpt-medical-services-pc-v-new-york-central-mutual-fire-insurance-nyappterm-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack