How is the applicant’s attorney’s fee fixed for no-fault article 75 proceedings, de novo actions and appeals?

Short answer: Settled at the Appellate Division, no conflicting department. The First and Second Departments agree on the rule, and no Court of Appeals decision or Third or Fourth Department decision in the database addresses it. Under 65-4.10 (j) (4) the fee for an article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm a master arbitration award, a de novo action and further appeals is 'fixed by the court' as a reasonable fee, not limited by the 65-4.6 formula or the (j) (2) master-arbitration cap; it requires a valid claim that was denied or overdue and an applicant who prevailed; the amount is in the court's discretion, a hearing is not required where none was requested, but the court must have sufficient information and state the evidentiary basis; time spent on the fee application is not compensable. Earlier contrary rulings were withdrawn or not followed: GEICO v AAAMG (2d Dept 2016, $650 under (j) (2)) was recalled on reargument in 2017, and Country-Wide v Valdan (1st Dept 2017, 20% under 65-4.6 (b)) was declined in Bay Needle (1st Dept 2018). Decisions now differ only in application, mainly on whether a small amount was adequately explained.

Scope. Deciding this question means ruling on the attorney's fee that Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4) allow for work in court after a no-fault master arbitration: a CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm the award (including the applicant's own petition to confirm when the insurer did not pay), an action for a de novo determination under § 5106 (c), and appeals from them. This is the 'additional' fee, on top of the 65-4.6 fee for the arbitration and the 65-4.10 (j) (2) fee for the master arbitration. It covers whether the fee is recoverable at all (the applicant prevailed; a valid claim was denied or overdue; the work falls within (j) (4); the request was timely and supported), whether the amount is controlled by the regulatory schedules (65-4.6 or (j) (2)) or 'fixed by the court' as a reasonable fee, and how the court must fix it (hours and prevailing rate, the usual reasonable-fee factors, whether a hearing is needed, stating the evidentiary basis, no fee for time spent on the fee application). Categories record what the court held on the fee for the court proceeding or appeal.

Based on 76 decisions in our database, the most recent decided October 22, 2026.

Leading authorities · Governing regulations · Authority map · Decisions by court · Plain-text version (Markdown)

Leading authorities

Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp. (2017 NY Slip Op 01552) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2017Court fixes the article 75 fee and states its evidentiary basisA CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm a master arbitration award is a 'court appeal' under 65-4.10 (j) (4), so the court has authority to award the additional fee; the denial without stated reasons was reversed and the matter remitted to fix the amount, stating the evidentiary basis, with no fee for time spent applying for the fee.
Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a determination of the amount of the additional attorney’s fee to which the appellant is entitled, stating the evidentiary basis for the award. We note that the court shall not consider any time spent by the appellant’s attorney in applying for and substantiating his fee
Later history: Issued on reargument: recalls and vacates the Court's own 2016 decision in the same case (139 AD3d 947, post 5188), which had limited the fee to $650 under 65-4.10 (j) (2) (i); the same order denied leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. (2018 NY Slip Op 03929) Appellate Division, First Department, 2018First Department: reasonable appeal fee; Valdan's 20% formula not followedThe provider that defeated the insurer's article 75 petition is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for the appeal, to be fixed by Supreme Court under 65-4.10 (j) (4); to the extent Country-Wide v Valdan (2017) calculated the fee differently (20% under 65-4.6 (b)), the court declined to follow it.
Accordingly, we remand the matter to Supreme Court for a determination of respondent’s reasonable attorney’s [*2]fees for this appeal. To the extent Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Valdan Acupuncture, P.C. (150 AD3d 560, 561 [1st Dept 2017]) takes a different approach to calculating attorneys’ fees, we decline to follow it.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v SCOB, LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 01352) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026Fee not controlled by 65-4.6 (d); basis must be statedThe fee for an article 75 proceeding is not controlled by 65-4.6 (d) but fixed by the court as a reasonable fee on the usual factors; because the court awarded only $1,000 against a $4,600 request without stating a basis, and none was evident from the record, the award was reversed and remitted for a new determination.
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the amount of the attorney’s fee for services rendered in connection with a CPLR article 75 proceeding is not controlled by 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (d), but rather, “shall be fixed by the court”
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Center, LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 06054) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025No hearing needed; small award upheld within discretionAn award of $250 for the article 75 proceeding was within the court's discretion without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and did not request a hearing, given the no-fault law's aim of prompt, inexpensive resolution.
As an initial matter, since Bay Ridge failed to submit an affirmation or an affidavit in support of its cross-petition, inter alia, describing the nature of the work performed and the amount of time expended on the matter, it was within the court’s discretion to determine a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees
Matter of 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 04293) Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026No fee without a determined valid, overdue claimA provider that obtained vacatur of a master arbitration award and remittal to arbitration on standing was not entitled to a (j) (4) fee, because no determination had yet been made that it had a valid claim that was denied or overdue; the $1,950 fee judgment was reversed.
Here, however, at the time that Grand Medical moved for an award of additional attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), no determination had been made that Grand Medical had a valid claim that was denied or overdue
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Midland Pharm. Yonkers Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 06193) Appellate Division, First Department, 2026First Department: set reasonable fee, state basis, include appealThe provider that defeated the insurer's petition was entitled to attorneys' fees; on remand the court must review the evidence, set a reasonable fee and state its evidentiary basis (or fix one in its discretion if the evidence is insufficient), and consider the fees incurred on the appeal.
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]).
Matter of Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. 179 AD2d 645Source of the rules that a 'court appeal' includes a CPLR article 75 proceeding on a master arbitration award and that there is no 'fee upon a fee'; relied on in GEICO v AAAMG (2016, 2017) and cited by 5 decisions.Not in our database.
Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. 170 AD3d 1168Affirmed vacatur of a master arbitrator's determination and remitted for the petitioner's reasonable attorney's fees for the appeal (as described in Comfort Choice 2025); cited for the fee by Comfort Choice, Mather, 563 Grand, Bliss and New York Recovery PT (also widely cited on the error-of-law standard).Not in our database.
RMP Capital Corp. v Victory Jet, LLC 139 AD3d 836General reasonable-fee standard (hours reasonably expended and prevailing rate; trial court's discretion) applied to (j) (4) fees; cited by 16 decisions.Not in our database.
Lancer Indem. Co. v JKH Realty Group, LLC 127 AD3d 1035Attorney bears the burden of proving the reasonable value of the services; quoted in the 2025-2026 Second Department (j) (4) decisions (13 decisions).Not in our database.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Rutland Med. PC 224 AD3d 531Fees incurred on the appeal are recoverable under 65-4.10 (j) (4); cited in Midland (2026) and Integrated Specialty (2026). Not in the database.Not in our database.
Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co. 90 NY2d 274A claimant recovers attorney's fees only where a valid claim or portion was denied or overdue; the basis of the no-fee rulings in 563 Grand (2026) and Fast Care (2018).Not in our database.

Governing regulations

Entitlement comes from Insurance Law § 5106 (a); how the court sets a reasonable fee (hours, prevailing rate, a stated evidentiary basis, no fee for the fee application) comes from the case law.

11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4) The attorney's fee for a de novo action under Insurance Law 5106 (c), or for a court appeal from a master arbitration award and any further appeals, is fixed by the court; under the case law an article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm the award is such an appeal.

Also relevant

Chosen by us from the regulation text and the decisions on this question that cite it. Each link opens our copy of the regulation, which is unofficial; the official text is in the NYCRR.

Authority map

Each circle is a decision on this question, placed by court and date; its colour is the position it took. Lines are citations between them. Select a circle (or find a decision by name) to see its links and summary. The same decisions are listed by court below the map.

Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountCourt fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretionAmount awarded for the court work vacated and remitted: no stated basis, insufficient information, or wrong measureFee for the court work computed under or capped by the 65-4.6 or 65-4.10 (j) (2) scheduleApplicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appealRing: rules on the question, but another ground decided the caseContrasted, distinguished or limitedDeclined to follow, questioned, overruled or reversedCited Show ordinary citations

Layout

The map loads when you scroll to it.

How the rule was applied, by court

Court	Fee due; court to fix	Amount fixed or upheld	Amount set aside	Limited to regulatory schedule	No fee recoverable	Total
Appellate Division, First Department	8	0	1	1	6	16
Appellate Division, Second Department	19	12	4	1	8	44
Appellate Term, Second Department	2	0	1	0	0	3
Trial courts in the First Department	0	2	0	0	0	2
Trial courts in the Second Department	1	3	0	5	2	11

Decisions (76)

Every decision in our database that rules on this question: highest court first, then by department, newest first. 40 turn on it; the others rule on it alongside a different main ground (marked "also decides"). The one-sentence summaries describe what each court said on this question.

Appellate Division, First Department (16 decisions)

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Midland Pharm. Yonkers Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 06193) Leading case Appellate Division, First Department, October 22, 2026Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountHeld the provider entitled to attorneys' fees and remanded for the court to review the evidence, set a reasonable fee stating its basis (or fix one in its discretion if the evidence was insufficient) and consider the appeal fees.
Matter of New Millennium Pain & Spine Medicine, P.C. v Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 00599) Appellate Division, First Department, February 6, 2024Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appeal (also decides)Held the provider was not the prevailing party and so was not entitled to attorney's fees under 65-4.10 (j) (4).
Matter of Lam Quan, MD, PC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 00174) Appellate Division, First Department, January 16, 2024Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appeal (also decides)Held the provider, which lost its petition to vacate, was not entitled to attorney's fees under 65-4.10 (j) (4).
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v WJW Med. Prods., Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 06472) Appellate Division, First Department, December 19, 2023Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appeal (also decides)Held the provider not entitled to attorney's fees for prosecuting this appeal, because a party is not entitled to fees on fees for applying for and substantiating attorney's fees.
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. (2023 NY Slip Op 05094) Appellate Division, First Department, October 10, 2023Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appealUpheld the denial of additional fees for opposing the insurer's article 75 petition because the provider moved some five and a half years late without explanation and submitted no proof of the fees incurred.
Matter of DTR Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Refill Rx Pharm., Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 00179) Appellate Division, First Department, January 17, 2023Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appeal (also decides)Held the provider was not entitled to (j) (4) attorney's fees because the award in its favor was properly vacated.
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture, P.C. (2021 NY Slip Op 01120) Appellate Division, First Department, February 18, 2021Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Held the provider entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees on appeal under 65-4.10 (j) (4) and remanded for Supreme Court to calculate them.
Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Avangard Supply, Inc. (2020 NY Slip Op 06855) Appellate Division, First Department, November 19, 2020Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Held the providers entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j) (4), to be determined by Supreme Court on remand.

Show all 16 decisions

Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture P.C. (2020 NY Slip Op 00048) Appellate Division, First Department, January 2, 2020Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountHeld that an article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm is a 'court appeal' under 65-4.10 (j) (4), so the prevailing provider was entitled to additional court-fixed fees for that proceeding and the appeal, which Supreme Court erred in failing to award.
Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC (2019 NY Slip Op 08951) Appellate Division, First Department, December 12, 2019Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Held the court had authority to award 65-4.10 (j) (4) fees for the court appeal from the master award and, because it failed to address the request, remanded to fix the amount, including fees for the appeal.
Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Evans (2019 NY Slip Op 07716) Appellate Division, First Department, October 29, 2019Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appeal (also decides)Held the provider not entitled to attorney's fees for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j) (4) because the appeal arose from a declaratory judgment action, not from an arbitration.
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture P.C. (2019 NY Slip Op 04087) Appellate Division, First Department, May 28, 2019Amount awarded for the court work vacated and remitted: no stated basis, insufficient information, or wrong measureVacated a $749.38 fee computed as 20% of the arbitration demand under 65-4.6 and remanded for a reasonable fee under 65-4.10 (j) (4), which governs court review of a master arbitration award.
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Acupuncture, P.C. (2018 NY Slip Op 08238) Appellate Division, First Department, December 4, 2018Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Held the provider entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j) (4) and remanded for Supreme Court to determine them.
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. (2018 NY Slip Op 03929) Leading case Appellate Division, First Department, June 5, 2018Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountHeld the provider entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for the appeal, fixed by the court under 65-4.10 (j) (4), and declined to follow the 20% 65-4.6 calculation of an earlier decision.
Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Valdan Acupuncture, P.C. (2017 NY Slip Op 04068) Appellate Division, First Department, May 23, 2017Fee for the court work computed under or capped by the 65-4.6 or 65-4.10 (j) (2) schedule (also decides)Held the provider entitled to attorneys' fees for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j) (4), calculated under 65-4.6 (b) as 20% of the no-fault benefits awarded.
Matter of Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. Kemper A. Unitrin Bus. v Professional Health Radiology (2016 NY Slip Op 06767) Appellate Division, First Department, October 13, 2016Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Granted the provider's counterclaim for attorney's fees for the Supreme Court proceeding, fixed by the court under 65-4.10 (j) (4), and remanded to determine them; no relief on the companion matter without a cross appeal.

Appellate Division, Second Department (44 decisions)

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Pfeffer (2026 NY Slip Op 06113) Appellate Division, Second Department, October 21, 2026Amount awarded for the court work vacated and remitted: no stated basis, insufficient information, or wrong measureVacated a $1,000 fee for the article 75 proceeding, against a $4,300 request supported by an affirmation, because the court gave no basis and none was evident from the record, and remitted for a new determination stating the evidentiary basis.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bliss Acupuncture, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 06081) Appellate Division, Second Department, October 21, 2026Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountHeld that the provider was entitled to (j) (4) attorney's fees for the de novo action, the request to confirm and the appeal, and remitted for the amount to be fixed.
Matter of 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 04291) Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Held the provider entitled to additional attorneys' fees under 65-4.10 (j) (4) for the appeal and remitted for the court below to determine the appropriate amount.
Matter of 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 04293) Leading case Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appealReversed a $1,950 fee judgment because, having only obtained vacatur and remittal to arbitration on standing, the provider had no determination yet that it held a valid claim that was denied or overdue.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Beach Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 03771) Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Held the provider that won summary judgment dismissing the insurer's de novo action entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and remitted for the court to determine the amount.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Sovereign Med. Servs., P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 03160) Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)After confirming the award for the provider, remitted the cross-petition's request for reasonable (j) (4) attorney's fees and other fees to the lower court for determination.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Suh (2026 NY Slip Op 03161) Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)After confirming the award for the provider, remitted the cross-petition's request for reasonable (j) (4) attorney's fees and other fees to the lower court for determination.
Matter of Integrated Specialty ASC, LLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 02651) Appellate Division, Second Department, April 29, 2026Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountHeld the provider entitled to additional fees for its petition to confirm, a 'court appeal', and remitted to fix the amount because the judgment omitted them without apparent basis despite the submitted fee affirmation.

Show all 44 decisions

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Citimed Surgery Ctr., LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 02645) Appellate Division, Second Department, April 29, 2026Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appealUpheld the denial of additional fees because the provider's motion with supporting affirmation was filed beyond the court-ordered 30-day period without any explanation for the delay.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Smart Choice Med., P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 02646) Appellate Division, Second Department, April 29, 2026Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appealUpheld the denial of additional fees because the provider filed its fee affirmation after the court-ordered briefing schedule and offered no reasonable justification for renewal based on information already available to it.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Ctr., LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 02644) Appellate Division, Second Department, April 29, 2026Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appealUpheld the refusal of a (j) (4) fee because the provider raised the request for the first time on reargument, made no timely application before the petition was decided, and submitted no documentation of the fees incurred.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Barakat PT PC (2026 NY Slip Op 01750) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 25, 2026Amount awarded for the court work vacated and remitted: no stated basis, insufficient information, or wrong measureVacated a $1,300 fee for defending the insurer's de novo action and remitted for a new determination stating its evidentiary basis, because the parties' evidence conflicted and the court gave no explanation evident from the record.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Allied Bd. Certified Physicians (2026 NY Slip Op 01782) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 25, 2026Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountReversed the denial of the provider's (j) (4) fee request and remitted to determine whether, and in what amount, reasonable fees are due, because the insurer's 65-4.6 (h) objection was raised for the first time on appeal and not preserved.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Patient Care Assoc. (2026 NY Slip Op 01783) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 25, 2026Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountReversed the denial of the provider's (j) (4) fee request and remitted to fix reasonable fees, if any, because the insurer's 65-4.6 (h) fee-schedule objection was raised for the first time on appeal and not properly before the court.
Matter of John T. Mather Mem. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 01788) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 25, 2026Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountHeld that a proceeding to confirm a master arbitration award is a 'court appeal' under 65-4.10 (j) (4), so the provider was entitled to reasonable fees, and remitted for the amount to be fixed.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Community Med. Imaging, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 01351) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026Amount awarded for the court work vacated and remitted: no stated basis, insufficient information, or wrong measureVacated a $750 fee against a $2,200 request and remitted for a new determination stating its basis, because the court gave no explanation and the insurer's own evidence suggested customary fees were higher.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v YSC Trinity Acupuncture, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 01354) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountReversed the denial of a fee because the provider prevailed in the article 75 proceeding, held the amount not controlled by 65-4.6 (d), and remitted for the court to fix a reasonable fee stating its basis.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v SCOB, LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 01352) Leading case Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026Amount awarded for the court work vacated and remitted: no stated basis, insufficient information, or wrong measureVacated a $1,000 fee awarded against a $4,600 request and remitted for a new determination stating its evidentiary basis, because the court gave no basis and none was evident; the fee is not controlled by 65-4.6 (d).
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Ctr., LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 01350) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretionUpheld a $280 fee for the article 75 proceeding fixed without a hearing because the provider submitted no affirmation of the work performed and time expended and did not request a hearing.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Baltic Supply Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 01349) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretionUpheld a $300 fee for the article 75 proceeding fixed without a hearing because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and never requested a hearing.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Stand Up MRI of Manhattan (2026 NY Slip Op 01353) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretionUpheld a $300 fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and did not request a hearing.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v MTS Acupuncture, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 01053) Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appealHeld the provider not entitled to an additional (j)(4) fee for post-judgment subpoena and motion practice, because the judgment had been satisfied and no claim for benefits remained overdue; denial was on the merits, not academic.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lenox Hill Hosp. (NSUH) (2026 NY Slip Op 01052) Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountHeld the hospital entitled to additional (j) (4) fees for work securing overdue postjudgment interest, but not for the harassing information subpoena or the appeal, and remitted to fix the amount.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v YSC Trinity Acupuncture, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 01054) Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appeal (also decides)Upheld denial of an additional (j)(4) fee for post-judgment subpoena and motion practice, because the judgment had been paid and no claim or portion of a claim for benefits was overdue.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Atlantic Med. Care, P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 07297) Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Held the provider entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees under 65-4.10 (j) (4) and remitted to Supreme Court to determine the amount.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Integrated Medicine of S.I., P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 06703) Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretionUpheld a $220 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and did not request a hearing.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v YD Med. Servs., P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 06704) Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretionUpheld a $220 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and did not request a hearing.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Jong Won Yom (2025 NY Slip Op 06705) Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretionUpheld a $220 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and did not request a hearing.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Jong Won Yom (2025 NY Slip Op 06706) Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretionUpheld a $600 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and did not request a hearing.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Center, LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 06054) Leading case Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretionUpheld a $250 (j) (4) fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing its work and time and requested no hearing.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Center, LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 06055) Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretionUpheld a $1,100 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding despite a $4,450 affirmation, because no hearing was requested and the court properly weighed the prevailing rate and the matter's complexity.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Pfeffer (2025 NY Slip Op 06056) Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretionUpheld a $500 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and never requested a hearing.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Scob, LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 06057) Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretionUpheld a $1,100 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding despite a $4,550 affirmation, because no hearing was requested and the court properly considered the prevailing rate and the matter's complexity.
Matter of Lam Quan MD, P.C. v LM Gen. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 03328) Appellate Division, Second Department, June 4, 2025Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Held the petitioner entitled to additional attorneys' fees for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j) and remitted for the court below to fix the amount, alongside an arbitration-level 65-4.6 (d) fee.
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Comfort Choice Chiropractic, P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 01363) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 12, 2025Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountHeld that the provider which defeated the insurer's article 75 petition to vacate should have been granted a fee under 65-4.10 (j) (4), reversed the denial, and remitted to fix a reasonable amount.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Comfort Choice Chiropractic, P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 01337) Appellate Division, Second Department, March 12, 2025Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Held that the provider which obtained dismissal of the insurer's de novo action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was entitled to a fee under 65-4.10 (j) (4), and remitted for a determination of a reasonable amount.
Allstate Ins. Co. v Kapeleris (2025 NY Slip Op 00839) Appellate Division, Second Department, February 13, 2025Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretionUpheld a $76,856.67 attorney's fee awarded after a nonjury trial in the insurer's de novo action as a provident exercise of discretion under 5106 (a) and 65-4.10 (j) (4).
Matter of V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07265) Appellate Division, Second Department, October 9, 2019Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Held, as conceded, that the provider was entitled to an attorney's fee for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j), and remitted to Supreme Court to fix the amount.
Matter of Bay Needle Care Acupuncture v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07249) Appellate Division, Second Department, October 9, 2019Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Held, as conceded, that the provider was entitled to an attorney's fee for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j), and remitted to Supreme Court to fix it.
Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07245) Appellate Division, Second Department, October 9, 2019Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Held, as conceded, that the provider was entitled to an attorney's fee for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j), and remitted to Supreme Court to fix the amount.
Matter of Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07061) Appellate Division, Second Department, October 2, 2019Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appeal (also decides)Held the provider not entitled to an attorney's fee for the appeal because the master arbitrator made no finding that the claims were overdue.
Matter of Fast Care Med. Diagnostics, PLLC/PV v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 03831) Appellate Division, Second Department, May 30, 2018Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appeal (also decides)Upheld the denial of attorney's fees to the provider because the arbitrator had not reached whether the claims were overdue, and the matter was sent back for further arbitration.
Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp. (2017 NY Slip Op 01552) Leading case Appellate Division, Second Department, March 1, 2017Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountHeld an article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm a master award is a 'court appeal' under 65-4.10 (j) (4), reversed the unexplained denial and remitted to fix the fee with its evidentiary basis, excluding fees on fees.
Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp. (2016 NY Slip Op 03879) Appellate Division, Second Department, May 18, 2016Fee for the court work computed under or capped by the 65-4.6 or 65-4.10 (j) (2) scheduleReversed the denial of the additional fee for the article 75 proceeding but limited it to $650, applying the master-arbitration cap of 65-4.10 (j) (2) (i) because no oral argument fee was sought and no novel issue found.

Appellate Term, Second Department (3 decisions)

New York Recovery PT, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 25166) Appellate Term, Second Department, July 17, 2025Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amountReversed the denial of fees, holding that a petition to confirm a master award the insurer failed to pay timely is a 'court appeal' under 65-4.10 (j) (4), and remitted to fix fees for the proceeding and appeal.
Quick Health Pharm. Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 25038) Appellate Term, Second Department, February 13, 2025Amount awarded for the court work vacated and remitted: no stated basis, insufficient information, or wrong measureHeld that the court below had wrongly applied the $1,360 cap of 65-4.6 (d) to the article 75 fee, so the effective $933.27 award was set aside and remitted to fix a reasonable (j) (4) fee without any regulatory cap.
Matter of Metro Pain Specialist P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50014(U)) Appellate Term, Second Department, January 2, 2020Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount (also decides)Held the provider entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j) (4) and remitted to the District Court to determine the amount.

Trial courts in the First Department (2 decisions)

American Tr. Ins. Co. v Brooklyn Med. Practice, PC (2025 NY Slip Op 50897(U) [86 Misc 3d 1208(A)]) Supreme Court, New York County, May 22, 2025Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretion (also decides)Rejected the insurer's argument that 65-4.6 (d) caps the article 75 fee. It awarded $345 (1.15 hours at $300) instead of the $850 sought because the affirmation gave little support and included fee-application time.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Mark S. McMahon MD, P.C. (2022 NY Slip Op 50716(U)) Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, August 5, 2022Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretion (also decides)Awarded $1,000 for 2.5 hours at $400 an hour spent opposing the petition, finding time and rate reasonable and rejecting the insurer's argument that the master-arbitration $65-per-hour cap limited the article 75 fee.

Trial courts in the Second Department (11 decisions)

ENS Med., P.C. v Nationwide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 26033) Supreme Court, Kings County, February 13, 2026Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appeal (also decides)Denied the provider's request for attorney's fees for the article 75 proceeding because it was not the prevailing party, adding that fees would not attach to EUO lost-earnings reimbursement, which is not a first-party benefit.
Time to Care Pharm. Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50126(U)) District Court of Suffolk County, Second District, January 17, 2024Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretion (also decides)Granted the unopposed request for additional attorney's fees for the post-arbitration proceeding under 65-4.10 (j) (4), fixing them at $1,000.
John T. Mather Mem. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 24009) Supreme Court, Kings County, January 12, 2024Applicant may not recover a fee for the court proceeding or appealDenied any (j) (4) fee because an unopposed petition to confirm a favorable master award is neither a 'court appeal' nor a de novo action; the provider's remedy for nonpayment was the $60 fee of 65-3.10 (b).
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Trinity Pain Mgt. of Staten Is., PLLC (2023 NY Slip Op 51337(U)) Supreme Court, Kings County, December 8, 2023Fee for the court work computed under or capped by the 65-4.6 or 65-4.10 (j) (2) schedule (also decides)Fixed the (j)(4) fee for the article 75 proceeding at $325 by applying the 65-4.10 (j) (2) $65 hourly rate to an assumed five hours, absent evidence of the work performed.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging P.C. (2023 NY Slip Op 51311(U)) Supreme Court, Kings County, December 1, 2023Fee for the court work computed under or capped by the 65-4.6 or 65-4.10 (j) (2) scheduleAdhered to a $195 article 75 fee, computed by applying the master-arbitration rate of $65 per hour to a presumed three hours, rejecting the $3,300 sought as excessive for boilerplate volume work and lacking credible evidence.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50953(U)) Supreme Court, Kings County, September 8, 2023Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretion (also decides)Fixed a nominal $100 fee for the article 75 proceeding on the reasonable-fee factors, because counsel gave no proof of time spent or experience, the issues were simple, and counsel's work did not produce the result.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Rutland Med., PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50814(U)) Supreme Court, Kings County, August 4, 2023Court fixes a reasonable amount itself, or upholds the amount fixed below as within its discretion (also decides)Awarded the prevailing provider $375 for the article 75 proceeding, raising the $70 policy-issue hourly rate to $125 for an assumed two hours plus a $125 appearance, because counsel submitted only boilerplate papers without an affirmation of the work.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging PC (2023 NY Slip Op50538(U)) Supreme Court, Kings County, May 28, 2023Fee for the court work computed under or capped by the 65-4.6 or 65-4.10 (j) (2) schedule (also decides)Held the prevailing provider entitled to a (j) (4) fee but, with no affirmation of services, fixed it at $220 by applying the 65-4.6 (c) $70 hourly rate to an assumed two hours plus an $80 appearance fee.

Show all 11 decisions

Loading the list… If it does not appear, the full list is in the plain-text version.

How this page is made: the decisions are those in our case-law database that cite this question's leading cases or were tagged with its subject. A language model read each one in full and recorded whether it rules on the question, the position it took and a one-sentence summary; a second, independent reading checked every entry. Court, department, date and the citation links come from the database. Read the decision before relying on it.