January 2, 2020
Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture P.C. (2020 NY Slip Op 00048)
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-country-wide-ins-co-v-tc-acupuncture-p-c-2020-ny-slip-op00048/
- Decided
- January 2, 2020
- Citation
- 2020 NY Slip Op 00048 · 179 AD3d 414
- Posture
- Other motion
- Outcome
- Provider prevailed
- Later treatment
- Followed in 7 later decisions (see Cited by)
- Legal questions
- Attorney's fees: article 75 and appeals (see the maps)
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.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture P.C. (2020 NY Slip Op 00048)
| Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture P.C. |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 00048 [179 AD3d 414] |
| January 2, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Country-Wide Insurance Company,
Respondent, v TC Acupuncture P.C., as Assignee of Corey Crichlow, Appellant. |
Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn (Gary Tsirelman of counsel), for appellant.
Jaffe & Velazquez, LLP, New York (Jean H. Kang of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered November 30, 2018, awarding respondent attorney’s fees in the sum total of $980 in connection with a no-fault arbitration award, unanimously modified, on the law, to remand the matter to Supreme Court for a determination of respondent’s reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the CPLR article 75 proceeding brought by petitioner to vacate the arbitration award and on this appeal, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
“The attorney’s fee for services rendered . . . in a court appeal from a master arbitration award and any further appeals, shall be fixed by the court adjudicating the matter” (11 NYCRR 65-4.10 [j] [4]). The term “court appeal” applies to a proceeding taken pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate or confirm a master arbitration award (see Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp., 148 AD3d 703, 705 [2d Dept 2017]). Accordingly, respondent TC Acupuncture, as a prevailing applicant for payment by petitioner insurer of attorney’s fees in an article 75 proceeding reviewing an arbitration award, is entitled to an additional award of attorney’s fees, as fixed by the court, for its motion to modify the order, in a 2015 article 75 proceeding denying Countrywide’s petition to vacate the arbitration award, to include a ruling confirming the arbitration and its opposition to Countrywide’s motion to reargue that order. Supreme Court erred in failing to award these additional fees.
Respondent is also entitled to the attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal to this Court of the order issued in the article 75 proceeding, to be fixed by the court, upon remand, pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4) (see Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C., 162 AD3d 407, 408 [1st Dept 2018]). Concur—Richter, J.P., Gische, Mazzarelli, Gesmer, JJ.
Legal questions
A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.
How is the applicant’s attorney’s fee fixed for no-fault article 75 proceedings, de novo actions and appeals?
This decision: Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount
Held 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.
Of the 18 decisions on this question in the First Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 8 (this one included) are in the same category. 4 decisions in other departments that cite or are cited by this one are on the full map.
Cited in this decision
A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.
- Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp. (2017 NY Slip Op 01552) FollowedA provider may recover an additional attorney's fee for an article 75 proceeding to confirm or vacate a master arbitration award.
- Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. (2018 NY Slip Op 03929) FollowedThe insurer's Mallela challenge failed because it presented no evidence that the provider was fraudulently incorporated.
Cited by
A label shows how the later decision treated this one.
- Matter of John T. Mather Mem. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 01788) FollowedA proceeding to confirm a master arbitration award is a court appeal entitling the provider to reasonable attorney's fees.
- Matter of New Millennium Pain & Spine Medicine, P.C. v Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 00599) FollowedThe provider's petitions failed because policy-exhaustion awards were rational and its wage-offset argument was unavailing.
- Matter of Lam Quan, MD, PC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 00174) FollowedAn arbitrator exceeds the scope of authority by awarding no-fault benefits after payment of the contractual policy limit.
- New York Recovery PT, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 25166) FollowedA provider may recover attorney's fees for confirming an overdue master arbitration award and for the ensuing appeal.
- Quick Health Pharm. Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 25038) FollowedAttorney's fees for a successful article 75 challenge to a no-fault award are not subject to the arbitration fee cap.
- Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture, P.C. (2021 NY Slip Op 01120) FollowedAn alleged error in the burden of proof for a fraudulent incorporation defense does not alone warrant vacatur of an arbitration award.
- American Tr. Ins. Co. v Mark S. McMahon MD, P.C. (2022 NY Slip Op 50716(U)) FollowedA master arbitrator may not reweigh evidence or resolve credibility disputes anew in reviewing a no-fault award.
Similar decisions
- Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07245)An arbitrator acts within discretionary authority by refusing to consider late submissions.
- Matter of Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07061)The provider's challenge to its arbitration attorney fee failed because it submitted no documentation of hours worked.
- Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Comfort Choice Chiropractic, P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 01363)The provider was entitled to attorney's fees after defeating the insurer's petition to vacate its arbitration award.
- Matter of Bay Needle Care Acupuncture v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07249)A master arbitrator exceeds the permitted review power by reweighing evidence of fraudulent incorporation and reaching a different factual conclusion.
- Matter of 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 04293)The provider's additional attorney's fee motion failed because no valid denied or overdue claim had been determined when it moved.