Matter of Nostrand Drugs Rx, Inc. v Church Mut. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 05400)

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of Nostrand Drugs Rx, Inc. v Church Mut. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 05400)

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on September 23, 2026

2025-00470, (Index No. 511903/23)

Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.

Linda Christopher

Barry E. Warhit

Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an award of a master arbitrator dated February 24, 2023, which confirmed an award of an arbitrator dated December 11, 2022, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carolyn E. Wade, J.), dated December 4, 2024. The order denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In September 2020, Ahsan Ali was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Ali received prescription medications from the petitioner Nostrand Drugs Rx, Inc. (hereinafter Nostrand), for injuries he sustained in the accident. Nostrand submitted an insurance claim to Church Mutual Ins. Co. (hereinafter Church Mutual) for reimbursement of the cost of the medication dispensed, in the total sum of $2,343.20. Nostrand never received payment. Thereafter, Nostrand submitted the insurance claim to arbitration. In an award dated December 11, 2022, after a hearing, an arbitrator denied Nostrand’s claim. Nostrand then requested that the matter be reviewed by a master arbitrator. In an award of a master arbitrator dated February 24, 2023, the master arbitrator confirmed the arbitration award dated December 11, 2022, in its entirety.

In April 2023, Nostrand commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate the master arbtirator’s award. In an order dated December 4, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award. Nostrand appeals.

“‘Consistent with the public policy in favor of arbitration, the grounds specified in CPLR 7511 for vacating or modifying a no-fault arbitration award are few in number and narrowly applied'” (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Westchester Med. Group, M.D., 125 AD3d 649, 650, quoting Matter of Mercury Cas. Co. v Healthmakers Med. Group, P.C., 67 AD3d 1017, 1017). “Arbitrators exceed their power only when they issue an award that ‘violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power'” (Matter of County of Nassau v Nassau County Investigators Police Benevolent Assn., Inc., 203 AD3d 824, 826, quoting American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v Allied Capital Corp., 35 NY3d 64, 70). “The master arbitrator’s determination of the law need not be correct: mere errors of law are insufficient to set aside the award of a master arbitrator” (Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 170 [*2]AD3d 1168, 1168, quoting Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Spine Americare Med., 294 AD2d 574, 577).

Here, Nostrand failed to demonstrate the existence of any statutory grounds for vacating the master arbitrator’s award (see Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Big Apple Pain Mgt., PLLC, 242 AD3d 1198, 1199; Matter of V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 176 AD3d 832, 833-834).

Nostrand’s remaining contentions either are improperly raised for the first time on appeal or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied Nostrand’s petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award.

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court