SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
February 21, 2012
 ANDROMEDA MEDICAL CARE, P.C. AS ASSIGNEE OF ANTOINETTE WALKER AND MARY YOU, RESPONDENT,
UTICA MUTUAL INS. CO., APPELLANT.
 Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered June 18, 2010.
 Andromeda Med. Care, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co.
 Appellate Term, Second Department
 Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
 Decided on February 21, 2012
 PRESENT: GOLIA, J.P., WESTON and RIOS, JJ.
 The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
 ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
 In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit by its
biomechanical engineer, which affidavit was in admissible form, as it
was accompanied by a certificate of conformity pursuant to Real
Property Law § 299-a, and was therefore in compliance with CPLR 2309
(c) (cf. Andromeda Med. Care, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d
139[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51629[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th
& 13th Jud Dists 2009]). The engineer concluded that the injuries of plaintiff's
assignors could not have arisen out of the accident in question, after he reviewed, among other things,
the photographs of the vehicle involved in the accident, the medical records of plaintiff and other providers regarding their treatment of the
assignors, and copies of the transcripts of plaintiff's assignors' testimony at their examinations under oath, all of which defendant attached to
its moving papers.
 As defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof in admissible form showing the lack of a causal connection between the accident and the injuries claimed by plaintiff's assignors, the burden shifted to plaintiff to rebut defendant's showing. Plaintiff, in its opposition papers, failed to do so. Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should therefore have been granted.
 Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
 Golia, J.P., and Weston, J., concur.
 Rios, J., dissents in a separate memorandum.
 Rios, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order in the following memorandum:
 I respectfully dissent and vote to affirm the order.
 Contrary to the finding of the majority, the affidavit of defendant's biomechanical engineer was insufficient to establish as a matter of law that the injuries claimed by plaintiff's assignors could not have arisen from the accident. Instead, the affidavit merely demonstrated a "founded belief" that the alleged injuries did not arise out of the accident (see Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 90 NY2d 195, 199 ). Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied.
 Decision Date: February 21, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.