MVAIC failed to disprove that the accident was the cause of the injuries

Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 2012 NY Slip Op 50578(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012)

“MVAIC contends that there is an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s assignor’s injuries were the result of a motor vehicle accident. MVAIC’s sole proof in support of its contention consisted of an uncertified copy of a police report, which merely recorded a hearsay statement. Contrary to MVAIC’s contention, this showing was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact…(cf. Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. (Gholson), 71 AD2d 1004 ).”

The first sentence from the above passage, along with the cite to Gohlson, leads me to believe that the hearsay statement consisted of a witness saying that the motor vehicle was not the proximate cause of the injuries, taking this case out of the realm of no-fault.  Since this hearsay statement was not (1) an admission, (2) a police officer’s observation, or (3) pedigree information that the police officer took , the record needed to be certified in order to contain admissible evidence, sufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion.

This was not done, and another loss scored against MVAIC

**

**

Related Articles

• Use, Operation and proximate cause liberally construed to afford coverage
• Use and Operation
• Coverage – use or operation
• Can a Declaration of Non-Coverage that Arises from a Co-Defendant’s Default be Considered Collateral Estoppel Against the Appearing and Answering Defendant?
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 decision, New York’s evidence rules regarding police report admissibility and MVAIC’s burden of proof standards may have been refined through subsequent case law or regulatory changes. Practitioners should verify current provisions regarding hearsay exceptions for police reports and the specific evidentiary requirements for challenging causation in MVAIC cases.