CARDONA v. MARTINEZ

Despite the procedural irregularities cited by MVAIC, the court properly found that plaintiff was a "qualified person" under the Insurance Law. Insurance Law § 5218 (b) provides that the court may permit an action against MVAIC upon satisfaction of certain enumerated conditions. Here, those conditions have effectively been demonstrated and there was no need for a hearing ( see e.g. Milstein v Clark, 32 AD2d 935). Plaintiff established that he cannot ascertain the identity of the owner or operator of the offending vehicle. MVAIC's argument that there has been no judicial determination that defendant Martinez was not involved in the accident does not warrant a different finding ( see Steele v Motor Veh. Ace. Indem. Corp., 39 AD3d 78, 83, appeal dismissed 9 NY3d 989).