| Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc. v Travelers Ins. Co. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03199 [50 AD3d 778] |
| April 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Vista Surgical Supplies, Inc., as Assignee of Melvin Beverly,Respondent, v Travelers Insurance Company, Appellant. |
—[*1] Alden Banniettis, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Jeff Henle of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits under an insurance contract, thedefendant appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court forthe Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated December 15, 2006 [14 Misc 2d 128(A), 2006NY Slip Op 52502(U)], which reversed so much of an order of the Civil Court of the City ofNew York, Kings County (Sweeney, J.), dated September 14, 2005, as denied the plaintiff'smotion for summary judgment on the complaint, and thereupon granted the plaintiff's motion.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (seeAlvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Contrary to the defendant'scontention, the Appellate Term properly determined that the peer review reports submitted inopposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint were inadmissiblesince they contained computerized, affixed, or stamped facsimiles of the physician's signature.These reports failed to comply with CPLR 2106, since they were not subscribed and affirmed,but merely contained facsimiles of the physician's signature without any indication as to whoplaced them on the reports, nor are there any indicia that the facsimiles were properly authorized(see Dowling v Mosey, 32 AD3d1190, 1191 [2006]; Security Pac. Natl. Trust Co. v Cuevas, 176 Misc 2d 846 [1998];Sandymark Realty Corp. v Creswell, 67 Misc 2d 630 [1971]; Macri v St. AgnesCemetery, 44 Misc 2d 702 [1965]). Thus, the [*2]reports didnot constitute competent evidence sufficient to defeat the plaintiff's motion (see generally Burgos v Vargas, 33AD3d 579 [2006]; Bourgeois v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Forest Hills, 290 AD2d525 [2002]; Doumanis v Conzo, 265 AD2d 296 [1999]; MZ Dental, P.C. v ProgressiveNortheastern Ins. Co., 6 Misc 3d 649 [2004]). Accordingly, the Appellate Term properlygranted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint based on the defendant'sfailure to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing on themotion. Lifson, J.P., Florio, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.