Key Takeaway
Appellate Term Second Department rules MVAIC's prima facie case requirements match other no-fault insurance providers in Turnpike Medical decision.
This article is part of our ongoing coverage coverage, with 150 published articles analyzing coverage issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Turnpike Med., P.C. v MVAIC, 2011 NY Slip Op 51717(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
Well, perhaps it was only a matter of time before the Appellate Term, Second Dept. revisited its stance regarding MVAIC. I cannot honestly say it is a bad thing either. I never understood why they were able to do things that no other carrier could do.
“On appeal, defendant contends that plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff’s assignor was not a qualified person since he failed to provide defendant with written proof of lack of insurance. This argument lacks merit because plaintiff’s assignor’s status as a qualified person is not dependent upon defendant’s receipt of these documents (see Insurance Law § 5202 ; Liberty Orthopedics, PLLC v MVAIC, 20 Misc 3d 136, 2008 NY Slip Op 51533 ). As plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 12 AD3d 429 )…
Golia, dissent:
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
I am constrained to agree with the majority with regard to the issue of what constitutes a plaintiff’s prima facie case in a no-fault action brought against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) in view of the Appellate Division’s ruling in New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. (12 AD3d 429 ; see also Matter of MVAIC v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 73 AD3d 667 [“the burden is on MVAIC to prove its lack-of-coverage defense”]).
Anybody know what happened to Turnpike medical? There were off Hempstead Tpke, right near District Court. They have been out of business for awhile. It always looked like a fun place to get therapy. I am saddened that I never got the opportunity to enjoy the turnpike experience.
Related Articles
- MVAIC Claims in New York: Requirements, Deadlines & Coverage (Complete Guide)
- Understanding collateral estoppel in New York no-fault insurance cases
- When appellate division grants summary judgment for non-insured events
- Proving intentional accident claims in New York insurance law
- Material misrepresentations in insurance: preponderance vs intent standards
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2011 decision, various amendments to Insurance Law § 5202 and related no-fault regulations may have modified the standards for establishing prima facie cases against MVAIC and documentation requirements for qualified person status. Practitioners should verify current statutory provisions and recent appellate precedent regarding MVAIC’s evidentiary burdens and procedural requirements.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Insurance Coverage Issues in New York
Coverage disputes determine whether an insurance policy provides benefits for a particular claim. In the no-fault context, coverage questions involve policy inception, named insured status, vehicle registration requirements, priority of coverage among multiple insurers, and the applicability of exclusions. These articles examine how New York courts resolve coverage disputes, the burden of proof on coverage defenses, and the interplay between regulatory requirements and policy language.
150 published articles in Coverage
Keep Reading
More Coverage Analysis
IME no-show is a policy defense triggering the hourly attorney fee provision
Learn how IME no-show defenses trigger hourly attorney fee provisions in NY no-fault insurance. Court rules failure to attend IME is policy defense.
May 22, 2021
Contractual deemer
New York courts examine when out-of-state insurers can avoid no-fault coverage obligations through contractual deemer provisions and policy language analysis.
Apr 24, 2021
Staged Accident Defense: Prima Facie Evidence Standards in New York No-Fault Cases
New York Appellate Term ruling on staged accident defense in no-fault insurance cases — how EUO testimony establishes prima facie evidence of no insured incident.
Nov 19, 2018
What happened here?
Court rules on no-fault insurance coverage dispute, addressing procedural issues with raising defenses for first time on appeal and excess coverage eligibility.
Mar 20, 2015
Policy Exhaustion and priority of payment
Learn how New York no-fault insurance policy limits affect medical provider recovery when coverage is exhausted. Mount Sinai Hospital case analysis.
Mar 21, 2013
The Appellate Division grants an Article 75 petition and remands the matter back to AAA arbitration
Appellate Division grants Article 75 petition in MVAIC v Interboro Medical, remanding no-fault arbitration case back to AAA for coverage determination.
May 31, 2010Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a coverage matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
