GAGLIARDI v. MVAIC (2019)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,

Anthony GAGLIARDI, D.C. a/a/o Ronnie Springer, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MVAIC, Defendant-Appellant.

570353 /19

Decided: December 20, 2019

PRESENT: Shulman, P.J., Edmead, J.

Order (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered August 27, 2018, affirmed, without costs.

Defendant MVAIC's motion for summary judgment dismissing this first-party no-fault action was properly denied. The burden is on MVAIC to prove its “lack of coverage” defense in support of its motion for summary judgment (see e.g. Pomona Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v. MVAIC, 32 Misc 3d 140[A], 2011 NY Slip Op. 51573[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2011]). Here, MVAIC failed to eliminate all triable issues concerning coverage since its own proof contains conflicting evidence about the ownership of the vehicle (see Karina K. Acupuncture, P.C. v. MVAIC, 55 Misc 3d 139[A], 2017 NY Slip Op. 50546[U] [App Term, 1st Dept. 2017]; VS Care Acupuncture, PC v. MVAIC, 51 Misc. 3d 147[A], 2016 NY Slip Op. 50764[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]). Specifically, although MVAIC contends that the assignor Ronnie Springer was the owner of the uninsured vehicle, and therefore not a “qualified person” (Insurance Law § 5202[b]), evidence in the record tends to indicate that the assignor was neither the registered owner nor title holder of the vehicle, and that the vehicle was registered to one Melanie Gamble.

Per Curiam.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network