February 4, 2026

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v M EL Sayed Physical Therapy, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 00501)

Headnote

The provider's fee appeal was dismissed because the challenged portion of the order did not decide a motion made on notice. In a CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate a master arbitration award, the provider appealed the portion of Supreme Court's order denying additional attorney fees. The Appellate Division, Second Department, held that no appeal lay as of right under CPLR 5701 (a) (2) and declined to grant leave to appeal, leaving the denial in place.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v M EL Sayed Physical Therapy, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 00501)

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v M EL Sayed Physical Therapy, P.C.
2026 NY Slip Op 00501 [246 AD3d 722]
February 4, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, April 8, 2026


[*1]
 In the Matter of American Transit Insurance Company, Respondent,
v
M EL Sayed Physical Therapy, P.C., As Assignee of Carol McGee, Appellant.

Roman Kravchenko, Melville, NY, for appellant.

Short & Billy, P.C., New York, NY (Seok Ho [Richard] Kang of counsel), for respondent.


HEADNOTES


Appeal – Appeal as of Right – Order Not Deciding Motion Made on Notice

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitration award dated July 10, 2022, M EL Sayed Physical Therapy, P.C., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Peter P. Sweeney, J.), dated March 18, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the application of M EL Sayed Physical Therapy, P.C., for an additional award of attorneys’ fees.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal must be dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from the portion of the order appealed from, which does not decide a motion made on notice, and we decline to grant leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Kelsey v Rutledge, 214 AD3d 862, 862 [2023]; Gamman v Silverman, 135 AD3d 814, 815 [2016]). Genovesi, J.P., Brathwaite Nelson, Dowling and Hom, JJ., concur.

Similar decisions