MAIGA PRODUCTS CORP v. MVAIC (2020)

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, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2017]; see also Barillas v. Rivera, 32 A.D.3d 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.