• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
  • Services
    • Search
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Services
    • Search
    • No-Fault AI
    • New Decisions
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
February 23, 2017

Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Radiology of Westchester, P.C. (2017 NY Slip Op 01461)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/country-wide-ins-co-v-radiology-of-westchester-p-c-2017-ny-slip-op01461/

Court
Appellate Division, First Department
Decided
February 23, 2017
Citation
2017 NY Slip Op 01461 · 147 AD3d 652
Posture
Article 75 petition
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
CPLR article 75 (arbitration awards) EUO no-show
Legal questions
Court review of arbitration awards · No-show defense: insurer's proof (see the maps)
Cite as
Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Radiology of Westchester, P.C., 147 AD3d 652 (1st Dept 2017)

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.

The master arbitrator's award irrationally ignored uncontroverted evidence that the assignor failed to appear for three scheduled EUOs. An arbitrator had awarded no-fault benefits to the provider, and the master arbitrator affirmed that award. The insurer's petition to vacate was unopposed but denied by Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the order and judgment, granted the insurer's petition, and vacated the award because the master arbitrator's disregard of the nonappearance evidence was arbitrary.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Radiology of Westchester, P.C. (2017 NY Slip Op 01461)

Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Radiology of Westchester, P.C.
2017 NY Slip Op 01461 [147 AD3d 652]
February 23, 2017
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, March 29, 2017

[*1]

 Country-Wide Insurance Company, Appellant,
v
Radiology of Westchester, P.C., as Assignee of Elizabeth Colon, Respondent.

Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP, New York (Jean H. Kang of counsel), for appellant.

Frank S. Patruno Law Offices P.C., Montgomery (Frank S. Patruno of counsel), for respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J), entered August 11, 2015, denying the unopposed petition to vacate a master arbitration award, dated March 17, 2015, which affirmed an arbitrator’s award that had granted respondent no-fault insurance benefits, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, and the award vacated. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The master arbitrator’s award was arbitrary because it irrationally ignored petitioner’s uncontroverted evidence establishing that the assignor failed to appear at the three scheduled examinations under oath (cf. Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2015]; Easy Care Acupuncture P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 137[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51524[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Richter, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Legal questions (2)

Questions 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.

Court review of arbitration awards

Open the full map

When does a court vacate, modify or confirm a no-fault arbitrator’s or master arbitrator’s award under CPLR article 75?

This decision: Award vacated or modified because it was irrational, arbitrary and capricious, without evidentiary support or contrary to settled law

Vacated the master award affirming the provider's award as arbitrary because it irrationally ignored the insurer's uncontroverted evidence that the assignor failed to appear at three scheduled examinations under oath.

  • Court of AppealsCt App 1
  • Appellate DivisionApp Div 34
  • Appellate TermApp Term 9
  • Trial courtsTrial 11
2010, Court of Appeals: 1 decision (1 Award stands)2023, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (1 Award stands, 1 Vacated: irrational/arbitrary, 1 Vacated: exceeded power)2021, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Award stands)2020, Appellate Division: 4 decisions (2 Award stands, 1 Vacated: irrational/arbitrary, 1 Remanded, undecided)2019, Appellate Division: 5 decisions (2 Award stands, 3 Vacated: irrational/arbitrary)2018, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (3 Award stands)2017, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (1 Award stands, 2 Vacated: irrational/arbitrary)2016, Appellate Division: 4 decisions (2 Award stands, 2 Vacated: irrational/arbitrary)2015, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (1 Award stands, 1 Vacated: irrational/arbitrary)2014, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Award stands)2024, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (3 Award stands)2026, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Award stands)2009, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Award stands)2010, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (1 Award stands, 1 Vacated: irrational/arbitrary)2022, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Vacated: exceeded power)2019, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (3 Award stands)2018, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Award stands)2017, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Remanded, undecided)2016, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Remanded, undecided)2011, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Remanded, undecided)2009, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Vacated: irrational/arbitrary)2022, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Award stands)2021, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Vacated: irrational/arbitrary)2018, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Award stands)2015, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Award stands, 1 Vacated: exceeded power)2008, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Award stands)2006, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Award stands, 1 Vacated: exceeded power)2005, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Award stands)2024, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Award stands)2025, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Award stands)This decision
20052010201520202025
Award standsVacated: irrational/arbitraryVacated: exceeded powerRemanded, undecidedThis decision

Of the 55 decisions on this question in the First Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 13 (this one included) are in the same category.

No-show defense: insurer's proof

Open the full map

Did the insurer prove its IME/EUO no-show defense: mailed, compliant scheduling requests and the claimant’s nonappearance?

This decision: Insurer proved mailed, compliant requests and the nonappearance; claimant's answers rejected (rules on the question, but another ground decided the case)

Vacated the master arbitrator's award as irrational because it ignored the insurer's uncontroverted evidence that the assignor failed to appear for three scheduled EUOs.

  • Appellate DivisionApp Div 53
  • Appellate TermApp Term 71
  • Trial courtsTrial 40
2023, Appellate Division: 4 decisions (3 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2022, Appellate Division: 8 decisions (3 Defense proved, 5 Requests not compliant)2021, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Defense proved)2020, Appellate Division: 4 decisions (3 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2019, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (1 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2018, Appellate Division: 5 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved, 2 Requests not compliant)2017, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2016, Appellate Division: 5 decisions (3 Defense proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2015, Appellate Division: 7 decisions (2 Defense proved, 5 Requests not compliant)2014, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Defense proved)2013, Appellate Division: 4 decisions (3 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved)2011, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2024, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Defense proved)2025, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2019, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (1 Mailing not proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved, 1 Triable issue)2018, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2017, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Nonappearance not proved)2016, Appellate Term: 14 decisions (5 Defense proved, 6 Nonappearance not proved, 1 Requests not compliant, 2 Triable issue)2015, Appellate Term: 12 decisions (11 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2014, Appellate Term: 6 decisions (6 Defense proved)2013, Appellate Term: 5 decisions (4 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved)2012, Appellate Term: 8 decisions (6 Defense proved, 2 Mailing not proved)2011, Appellate Term: 7 decisions (6 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved)2010, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (2 Defense proved)2007, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Requests not compliant)2006, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (1 Requests not compliant, 1 Triable issue)2005, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (1 Defense proved, 2 Requests not compliant)2025, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (3 Defense proved)2026, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (2 Defense proved)2020, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Mailing not proved)2022, Trial courts: 8 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Mailing not proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved, 4 Requests not compliant)2021, Trial courts: 6 decisions (3 Defense proved, 2 Requests not compliant, 1 No-show excused)2020, Trial courts: 7 decisions (1 Mailing not proved, 6 Requests not compliant)2019, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2018, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Defense proved, 1 Requests not compliant)2015, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2014, Trial courts: 3 decisions (2 Defense proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved)2013, Trial courts: 4 decisions (2 Defense proved, 2 Nonappearance not proved)2009, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2007, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Requests not compliant)2024, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Requests not compliant)2025, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Mailing not proved, 1 Nonappearance not proved)2026, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Mailing not proved)2005, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)2023, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Defense proved)This decision
20052010201520202025
Defense provedMailing not provedNonappearance not provedRequests not compliantTriable issueNo-show excusedThis decisionCites it or cited by itDistinguished or limited

Of the 164 decisions on this question in the First Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 93 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

  • Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp. (2015 NY Slip Op 00212) Contrasted (cf., but see)A provider's failure to attend EUOs violates a condition precedent to no-fault coverage and vitiates the policy.
  • Easy Care Acupuncture P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 51524(U)) Contrasted (cf., but see)An insurer may request IMEs before a provider submits claim forms under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1.

Similar decisions

  • Preferred Med. Imaging, P.C. v Countrywide Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 52577(U))An arbitration award requiring a provider to establish medical necessity is contrary to settled law.
  • Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Valdan Acupuncture, P.C. (2017 NY Slip Op 04068)The insurer failed to establish grounds to vacate an award rejecting its fraudulent incorporation defense.
  • R.J. Professional Acupuncturist, P.C. v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50541(U))A provider establishes its prima facie no-fault claim by submitting complete proof of the fact and amount of loss and showing payment is overdue.
  • Matter of Advanced Orthopaedics, PLLC v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2022 NY Slip Op 02406)An initial EUO request sent more than 30 days after receipt of a claim is a nullity, unexcused by 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (p).
  • Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C. (2016 NY Slip Op 04156)A master arbitrator's award was irrational because it ignored the coverage effect of the assignor's failure to attend duly scheduled IMEs. The insurer presented authority establishing that the IME nonappearances rendered the no-fault policy void ab initio.
Beynenson Law

Tech-driven New York no-fault collections for healthcare providers.

About the firm

Contact

  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Contact form

Case Law

  • Search
  • No-Fault AI
  • New Decisions
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations

Arbitration Data

  • Arbitrator Scorecard
  • Award Volume
  • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Attorney Data
  • Arbitration Pro Extension

©2026 The Beynenson Law Firm, PC. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Site by khrystev.dev

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website provides general information, not legal advice, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential information through this site.