Ordered that the order dated June 4, 2007 is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiffs' medical service providers failed to demonstrate the admissibility of their billing records under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see CPLR 4518 [a]; Matter of Leon RR., 48 NY2d 117, 122-123; Hochhauser v Electric Ins. Co., 46 AD3d 174, 179-180; Kane v Triborough Bridge Tunnel Auth., 8 AD3d 239, 241; Rosenthal v Allstate Ins. Co., 248 AD2d 455, 456-457). Thus, the plaintiffs' motion was properly denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers ( see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr, 64 NY2d 851).
To the extent that the plaintiffs raise any issue with respect to the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, that issue is not properly before us, as the cross motion remains pending and undecided ( see Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 542-543).