Throgs Neck Multicare, P.C. v. Mercury Cas. Co., 2016 wl 3748667, 2016 Slip Op. 51081
The insurer in it summary judgment motion attached as proof a record downloaded from the New York State Dept of State with respect to the medical providers corporate status and name of the owner. The Court ruled this printout inadmissible pursuant to the CPLR, saying:
The computer printout submitted by defendant was not in admissible form (see CPLR 4518 [c]; Dyer v 930 Flushing, LLC, 118 AD3d 742 ). As defendant failed to establish that the treating doctor was plaintiff’s owner, defendant’s argument as to CPLR 2106 lacks merit (cf. Radiology Today, P.C. v Mercury Ins. Co., 34 Misc 3d 145[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50148[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). Defendant raises no issue with respect to the merits of plaintiff’s doctor’s affirmation, which meaningfully referred to and sufficiently rebutted the conclusions set forth in defendant’s doctor’s IME report. Thus, the conflicting medical expert opinions proffered by the parties were sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of medical necessity for the services at issue *2 (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 ; Comprehensive MRI of NY, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 42 Misc 3d 137[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50128[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014]). Consequently, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been denied.
Certified copies of records should be obtained as exhibits.