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

The Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) serves as New York’s safety net, providing coverage when liable parties are uninsured or untraceable. However, MVAIC aggressively defends claims, often asserting that no covered motor vehicle accident occurred. To succeed on this defense, MVAIC must present admissible evidence establishing that injuries did not arise from a motor vehicle accident. As the Appellate Term’s decision in Five Boro Psychological Services, P.C. v MVAIC demonstrates, MVAIC cannot rely on inadmissible hearsay in police reports to meet this burden.

Understanding what evidence qualifies as admissible becomes crucial in MVAIC litigation. Police reports contain multiple types of information: officers’ personal observations, statements by witnesses and parties, and pedigree information like names and addresses. Each category receives different treatment under hearsay rules. Officers’ direct observations generally qualify as admissible, as do certain routine administrative entries. However, witness statements recorded by police remain inadmissible hearsay unless they fall within recognized exceptions.

This evidentiary framework creates strategic challenges for MVAIC when defending claims. Often, the most compelling evidence that no qualifying accident occurred comes from witness statements in police reports—statements asserting that a vehicle didn’t strike the claimant, or that injuries occurred through some mechanism other than motor vehicle involvement. But if these statements constitute inadmissible hearsay, MVAIC cannot use them to defeat summary judgment motions by healthcare providers seeking payment.

Case Background

Five Boro Psychological Services, P.C. brought suit against MVAIC seeking payment for psychological services provided to an injured patient. The provider moved for summary judgment, establishing through admissible evidence that services were rendered and billed. MVAIC opposed the motion, arguing that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the patient’s injuries arose from a motor vehicle accident—a threshold requirement for MVAIC coverage.

In support of this argument, MVAIC submitted an uncertified copy of a police report. This report apparently contained a hearsay statement from a witness asserting that the motor vehicle was not the proximate cause of the injuries. MVAIC contended this statement created a factual dispute precluding summary judgment. The critical question became whether this uncertified hearsay statement could defeat the plaintiff’s motion.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis

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

**

**

Legal Significance

The Five Boro Psychological Services decision reinforces fundamental evidentiary principles that apply with particular force in MVAIC litigation. Courts require admissible evidence to create triable issues of fact on summary judgment motions. This requirement ensures that parties cannot defeat otherwise valid claims by pointing to inadmissible material that might suggest disputed facts. If courts allowed inadmissible evidence to defeat summary judgment, the rule requiring admissible proof at trial would become meaningless—parties could survive dispositive motions based on evidence they could never present to a jury.

The decision also clarifies the requirements for using police reports as evidence. While police reports receive special treatment under certain circumstances, they remain subject to hearsay rules. The court distinguishes between different types of information in police reports: (1) admissions by parties, which fall under the admission exception to hearsay; (2) officers’ personal observations, which constitute non-hearsay evidence; and (3) pedigree information routinely collected by police, which may qualify under the public records exception. Witness statements that don’t fall into these categories remain inadmissible hearsay.

Moreover, even when police reports contain potentially admissible information, proper certification becomes essential. Uncertified copies of police reports lack the foundation necessary to establish authenticity and reliability. The certification requirement serves important functions: it ensures the document is what it purports to be, establishes the chain of custody, and provides assurance that the record has not been altered. Without certification, courts cannot verify these basic requirements.

The Gholson citation provides additional context. That case similarly involved attempts to use uncertified hearsay statements to establish that injuries did not arise from a qualifying motor vehicle accident. By citing Gholson, the Appellate Term signals that this evidentiary principle has long been established—MVAIC’s reliance on uncertified hearsay represents a known losing strategy rather than a novel legal theory.

Practical Implications

For MVAIC, this decision highlights the importance of developing admissible evidence early in litigation. When MVAIC believes injuries did not arise from a motor vehicle accident, it must obtain evidence that will survive summary judgment scrutiny. This may require conducting examinations under oath to develop admissions, obtaining certified police reports rather than uncertified copies, or securing affidavits from witnesses with personal knowledge. Relying solely on hearsay statements in police reports invites summary judgment losses.

MVAIC should also consider whether to challenge coverage at the pleadings stage rather than waiting for summary judgment. When police reports or other discovery clearly indicates no qualifying accident occurred, moving to dismiss under CPLR 3211 may be more effective than defending through summary judgment. Early dismissal avoids the evidentiary burdens associated with summary judgment while achieving the same result if the proof is sufficiently clear.

For healthcare providers and plaintiffs’ attorneys, Five Boro Psychological Services provides a roadmap for defeating MVAIC’s causation challenges. When MVAIC opposes summary judgment with uncertified police reports or other inadmissible hearsay, plaintiffs should promptly object and cite this decision. Courts will generally grant summary judgment when defendants attempt to create fact questions using inadmissible evidence.

Providers should also be prepared to establish prima facie entitlement to payment. This requires admissible evidence that services were rendered, properly billed, and related to a motor vehicle accident. While MVAIC bears the burden of proving no qualifying accident occurred, providers must first establish their basic claim elements. Comprehensive billing affidavits and assignment documentation become essential.

The decision also counsels both sides about the value of early evidence gathering. Providers should obtain and preserve admissible evidence establishing the motor vehicle accident’s occurrence. This might include certified police reports showing vehicle involvement, medical records documenting accident-related injuries, or affidavits from treating physicians. MVAIC should similarly develop admissible proof early if it believes no qualifying accident occurred. Waiting until summary judgment to address evidentiary requirements often proves too late to cure fundamental proof problems.

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.