Masigla v MVAIC (2025 NY Slip Op 51515(U))

Reported in New York Official Reports at Masigla v MVAIC (2025 NY Slip Op 51515(U))

Marshall & Marshall, PLLC (Angelique Evangelista and Frank D’Esposito of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Jill R. Epstein, J.), entered August 16, 2023. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $4,186.72.

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 $4,186.72.

At the outset of the trial, the parties agreed that the sole issue for trial would be limited to whether plaintiff’s assignor was a “qualified person” for there to be coverage of plaintiff’s claims by defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC).

Proof that a claimant is a resident of the State of New York who is not the owner of the uninsured motor vehicle involved in the accident 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. Here, plaintiff did not establish that its assignor was not the owner of the uninsured vehicle he was driving when the accident occurred, as we reject plaintiff’s contention that the parties’ stipulation at trial did not express that the assignor had exclusive possession of the uninsured vehicle for more than 30 days at the time of the accident. Consequently, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 128, plaintiff’s assignor was the “owner” of the uninsured vehicle.

In view of the foregoing, plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie case and, thus, the [*2]Civil Court should have dismissed the complaint (see Insurance Law §§ 5202 [b]; 5208, 5221 [b] [2]; Island Life Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC, 68 Misc 3d 131[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50995[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]; 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]; see also Barillas v Rivera, 32 AD3d 872 [2006]).

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.

TOUSSAINT, P.J. and MUNDY, J., concur.

OTTLEY, J, taking no part.