August 28, 2020

Maiga Prods. Corp. v MVAIC (2020 NY Slip Op 50993(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/maiga-prods-corp-v-mvaic-2020-ny-slip-op-50993u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: August 28, 2020
Citation: 2020 NY Slip Op 50993(U) · 68 Misc 3d 131(A)
Posture: Trial
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: MVAIC Provider's prima facie case
Legal questions: Claimant's prima facie case at trial · MVAIC eligibility: qualified covered person (see the maps)

Cite as

Maiga Prods. Corp. v MVAIC, 68 Misc 3d 131(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 50993(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The provider failed at trial to establish that its assignor was not the owner of the uninsured vehicle, defeating eligibility for MVAIC benefits. A prior order under CPLR 3212 (g) limited trial to coverage and vehicle ownership. The sole witness, an MVAIC employee, testified that the assignor had appeared for an EUO and was the vehicle's de facto owner. Under Insurance Law § 5202 (b), nonownership of the uninsured vehicle was a condition of qualified-person status and potential covered-person eligibility under Insurance Law § 5221 (b) (2). The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the provider's judgment and remitted for judgment dismissing the complaint, finding the provider's prima facie case unproved under those provisions and Insurance Law § 5208; it reached no other issue.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Maiga Prods. Corp. v MVAIC (2020 NY Slip Op 50993(U))

[*1]

Maiga Prods. Corp. v MVAIC

2020 NY Slip Op 50993(U) [68 Misc 3d 131(A)]

Decided on August 28, 2020

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 28, 2020

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., DAVID ELLIOT, WAVNY TOUSSAINT, JJ
2018-1641 K C

Maiga Products Corp., as Assignee of Jean-Baptiste, Gerard, Respondent,

against

MVAIC, Appellant.

Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Barbara Carabell of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael Gerstein, J.), entered May 3, 2018. The judgment, entered pursuant to a decision of that court dated March 8, 2018, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,610.19.

ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated March 8, 2018 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered May 3, 2018 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from a judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $1,610.19.

At the outset of the trial, the parties noted that, by a prior order, the issues for trial would be limited (see CPLR 3212 [g]) to whether there was coverage for plaintiff’s claims by defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) and whether plaintiff’s assignor owned the allegedly uninsured vehicle. The only witness at trial was an employee of MVAIC, who testified that plaintiff’s assignor had appeared for an examination under oath and that the assignor was the de facto owner of the vehicle he was operating at the time of the accident (see generally Vehicle and Traffic Law § 128).

Proof that a claimant is a resident of the State of New York who is not the owner of the uninsured motor vehicle is a condition precedent to the claimant being a “qualified person” (Insurance Law § 5202 [b]) and, thus, potentially eligible to be deemed to be a “covered person” (Insurance Law § 5221 [b] [2]) who would be entitled to recover no-fault benefits from MVAIC. Plaintiff did not establish that its assignor was not the owner of the uninsured vehicle he was driving when the accident occurred. In view of the foregoing, plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie case (see Insurance Law §§ 5202 [b]; 5208, 5221 [b] [2]; Advanced Chiropractic of NY, P.C. v MVAIC, 56 Misc 3d 134[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50955[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, [*2]11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; see also Barillas v Rivera, 32 AD3d 872 [2006]), and we reach no other issue.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

ALIOTTA, P.J., ELLIOT and TOUSSAINT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 28, 2020

Legal questions (2)

Questions of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.

Claimant's prima facie case at trial

Open the full map

What must a no-fault claimant prove at trial to make out its prima facie case for overdue benefits?

This decision: Insufficient at trial for another reason (MVAIC eligibility, assignment, eligibility for benefits)

Held after trial that the provider failed to make out its prima facie case against MVAIC because it did not establish that its assignor was not the owner of the uninsured vehicle he was driving.

Proof sufficientMailing/receipt not shownOverdue not shownBusiness-record foundation lackingOther element missingThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 93 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 25 (this one included) are in the same category.

MVAIC eligibility: qualified covered person

Open the full map

Against MVAIC, was the claimant shown to be a qualified, covered person meeting article 52’s conditions?

This decision: Eligibility is treated as the claimant's burden / condition precedent and the claimant did not prove it; claim fails or is premature

Held that proof the claimant is not the owner of the uninsured vehicle is a condition of qualified-person status, and the provider failed to establish its assignor was not the owner, so the complaint was dismissed.

Found not eligibleClaimant's proof lackingMVAIC failed to proveFound eligibleUnresolved / for trialDefense precluded/waivedThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 223 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 99 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

Advanced Chiropractic of NY, P.C. v MVAIC (2017 NY Slip Op 50955(U)) FollowedThe provider failed to prove the assignor's New York residency and the absence of other available insurance coverage for its MVAIC claim.

Cited by

Longevity Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2024 NY Slip Op 51164(U))MVAIC established that the assignor was not a qualified person because the assignor owned the vehicle operated at the time of the accident.
Masigla v MVAIC (2025 NY Slip Op 51515(U))The assignor's stipulated exclusive possession of the uninsured vehicle for over 30 days defeated eligibility for MVAIC benefits.
Medical Supply Depot Group Corp. v MVAIC (2025 NY Slip Op 50844(U))MVAIC established that the assignor was ineligible for no-fault benefits because the assignor owned the vehicle involved in the accident.

Similar decisions

Village Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2016 NY Slip Op 51421(U))The provider failed at trial to establish the assignor's eligibility for MVAIC benefits through residency proof and a notice-of-intention affidavit.
Advanced Med. Diagnostics of Queens, P.C. v Mvaic (2015 NY Slip Op 51659(U))The provider failed at trial to show exhaustion of remedies against the known vehicle owner before seeking benefits from MVAIC. A prior order had limited the nonjury trial to whether MVAIC coverage existed.
Medical Diversified Servs., Inc. v MVAIC (2017 NY Slip Op 51848(U))The provider failed to establish its prima facie case at trial because it did not prove submission of a notice-of-intention affidavit to MVAIC. Its witness testified that the claims had been mailed, but timely filing of the affidavit was a condition precedent to payment under Insurance Law § 5208 (a) (1) and (3).
SK Prime Med. Supply, Inc. v MVAIC (2015 NY Slip Op 51663(U))The provider failed to prove the assignor's New York residency and submission of a notice of intention to claim benefits from MVAIC. At a nonjury trial, the provider's witness established only that a claim form had been created, mailed, and unpaid.
Ap Orthopedic & Rehabilitation, P.C. v Mvaic (2011 NY Slip Op 51448(U))The assignor's failure to provide proof of New York residency defeated the provider's claim for no-fault benefits from MVAIC. The Appellate Term, Second Department, found that the assignor was neither a qualified person under Insurance Law § 5202 (b) nor a covered person under Insurance Law § 5221 (b) (2), leaving a condition precedent unsatisfied.