Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Genine D. Edwards, J.), entered June 5, 2013. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that a conflict-of-law analysis required the application of Pennsylvania law, pursuant to which there was a lack of coverage due to the rescission of the automobile insurance policy in question. By order entered June 5, 2013, from which plaintiff appeals, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion, finding that defendant had established that the underlying Pennsylvania insurance policy had been properly rescinded ab initio, pursuant to Pennsylvania law, and that there was therefore no coverage available to plaintiff's assignor.

In applying for the automobile insurance policy in Pennsylvania, the insured had indicated on her application that she resided in Pennsylvania and owned two vehicles which were garaged in Pennsylvania. The only connection between the policy and New York State was that plaintiff's assignor, the insured's husband, was injured while driving one of the insured vehicles in New York. Consequently, we agree that Pennsylvania law is controlling under New York's conflict of law rules (see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Infinity Group, 43 Misc 3d 130[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50602[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; Optimal Well-Being Chiropractic, P.C. v Infinity Ins. Co., Misc 3d , 2014 NY Slip Op 24227 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; see also Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Nichols, 8 AD3d 564 [2004]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Singletary, 279 AD2d 56, 58 [2000]).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that while an automobile insurance policy may be retroactively rescinded as to an insured who has made a misrepresentation material to the acceptance of risk by the insurer, the policy may not be retroactively rescinded with respect to third parties "who are innocent of trickery, and injured through no fault of their own" (see Erie Ins. Exch. v Lake, 543 Pa 363, 375, 671 A2d 681, 687 [1996]). Defendant, in its motion papers, set forth facts demonstrating that the insured was the actual perpetrator of a fraud, and that, based thereon, defendant had rescinded the policy in accordance with Pennsylvania law. Moreover, unlike in the case of Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Infinity Group (43 Misc 3d 130[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50602[U]), which involved the same accident, insured, assignor and defendant, in this case, defendant presented additional facts demonstrating that plaintiff's assignor was not an innocent third party, thereby establishing defendant's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. As defendant's prima facie showing was not sufficiently rebutted by plaintiff so as to raise a triable issue of fact, the order is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.