October 22, 2026

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Midland Pharm. Yonkers Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 06193)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-midland-pharm-yonkers-corp-2026-ny-slip-op-06193/

Court
Appellate Division, First Department
Decided
October 22, 2026
Citation
2026 NY Slip Op 06193
Posture
Article 75 petition
Outcome
Provider prevailed
Issues
CPLR article 75 (arbitration awards) Interest and attorney fees
Cite as
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Midland Pharm. Yonkers Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 06193 (1st Dept 2026)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

A master arbitration award must be affirmatively confirmed when a petition to vacate it is denied under CPLR 7511 (e). The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the insurer's CPLR article 75 petition but also denied the provider's cross-petition for confirmation and attorney fees. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order to confirm the award and remanded to fix reasonable fees under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j). The trial court must review the provider's evidence and state the evidentiary basis for the fee award. If the evidence is insufficient, the court may determine a reasonable fee in its discretion. It should also consider fees incurred in prosecuting the appeal under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4).

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Midland Pharm. Yonkers Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 06193)

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Midland Pharm. Yonkers Corp.
2026 NY Slip Op 06193
Decided on October 22, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


In the Matter of American Transit Insurance Company, Petitioner-Respondent,

v

Midland Pharmacy Yonkers Corp., Respondent-Appellant.

Decided and Entered: October 22, 2026

Index No. 650702/25|Appeal No. 7307|Case No. 2025-07981|

Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mendez, Kapnick, Pitt-Burke, Parker-Raso, JJ.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn (Gary Tsirelman of counsel), for appellant,

Larkin Farrell, LLC, New York (William R. Larkin, III of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Verna L. Saunders, J.), entered September 24, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from, denied respondent’s cross-petition for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106(a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j), and confirmation of a master arbitration award dated December 2, 2024, pursuant to CPLR 7511(e), unanimously modified, on the law, the award confirmed, and the matter remanded to fix the amount of attorneys’ fees owed to respondent, without costs.

The court denied petitioner’s article 75 petition to vacate the master arbitration award, therefore it was required to affirmatively confirm the award (CPLR 7511[e]; see Blumenkopf v Proskauer Rose LLP, 95 AD3d 647, 648 [1st Dept 2012]). Furthermore, respondent was entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees (see Insurance Law § 5106[a]; 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)).

The determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee is within the sound discretion of the trial court (see Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v SCOB, LLC, 243 AD3d 564, 565 [2d Dept 2025]). Respondent submitted some evidence concerning whether the fee requested was reasonable. Accordingly, upon remand, the court should review the evidence presented, and set a reasonable fee, as well as set forth the evidentiary basis for the award (see Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp., 148 AD3d 703, 706 [2d Dept 2017]). If the court finds that the evidence submitted was insufficient to determine what a reasonable fee would be, the trial court may determine a reasonable fee in its discretion (see Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Center, LLC, 243 AD3d 558, 560 [2d Dept 2025]).

The court should also consider the amount of fees incurred by respondent in prosecuting this appeal (see 11 NYCRR 65-4.10[j][4]; Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Rutland Med. PC, 224 AD3d 531, 532 [1st Dept 2024]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 22, 2026

Similar decisions