Why Trust This Analysis
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.
MVAIC Coverage Requirements: A Tale of Two Departments
The Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) serves as New York’s insurer of last resort for no-fault benefits when no other coverage exists. However, strict eligibility requirements apply, including that the injured person must be a “qualified person” under Insurance Law § 5202(b). A recent Appellate Term decision highlights how different judicial departments approach the burden of proof regarding these requirements, creating important strategic considerations for practitioners handling New York no-fault insurance law cases.
The case of Central Radiology Services v. MVAIC demonstrates how procedural nuances can determine case outcomes, particularly when parties stipulate to facts without considering all implications. This decision reveals a critical difference in how courts in different departments handle burden of proof issues in MVAIC cases.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Central Radiology Servs., P.C. v MVAIC, 2014 NY Slip Op 24402 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
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.
“Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, Insurance Law § 5202 (b) provides that a “qualified person” must be a resident of New York State. While the parties stipulated that MVAIC had received a notice of intention to make claim form with respect to plaintiff’s assignor, the stipulation is silent as to whether the notice of intention to make claim form was sworn and whether it reflected the residence of plaintiff’s assignor. Thus, it is unknown whether the notice of intention to make claim form was sufficient to establish, in the first instance, that this condition precedent was satisfied”
Flip this around in the First Department. MVAIC would have needed to prove that it never received a sworn claim form or that the Assignor was not a New York resident. And at this trial on stipulated facts, MVAIC would have stipulated itself to defeat in the First Department or in a Supreme Court in the Second Department.
Key Takeaway
The burden of proof regarding MVAIC eligibility requirements differs significantly between judicial departments. While the Second Department places the burden on plaintiffs to establish qualification, the First Department requires MVAIC to prove disqualification. This procedural difference can be outcome-determinative, making venue selection crucial in MVIAC cases where eligibility issues may arise.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post, New York’s no-fault insurance regulations and MVAIC procedures may have been subject to amendments, including potential changes to eligibility requirements under Insurance Law § 5202, procedural rules for burden of proof determinations, and notice requirements. Practitioners should verify current statutory provisions and recent appellate decisions to ensure compliance with any updated MVAIC coverage requirements and procedural standards.
Related Articles
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
Contract of insurance is vitiated?
New York insurance law requires timely notice of claims. When insureds fail to provide proper notice, the entire insurance contract can be voided, leaving them without coverage.
May 10, 2011
Insurance Material Misrepresentations: When Preponderance Matters More Than Intent
Learn how NY Insurance Law Section 3105(b) allows policy rescission for material misrepresentations without proving intent.
Jul 24, 2009
Occupied? Pedestrian?
Court clarifies when someone transitions from vehicle occupant to pedestrian status, impacting no-fault insurance coverage eligibility in New York.
Dec 15, 2016
Permanent consequential v. Significant limitaton – the value of early surgery
Analysis of Sutliff v Qadar case examining permanent consequential vs significant limitation standards under 5102(d), highlighting the importance of early.
Nov 14, 2014Was 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.
