July 12, 2007
101 Acupuncture, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51488(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/101-acupuncture-p-c-v-utica-mut-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-51488u/
- Decided
- July 12, 2007
- Citation
- 2007 NY Slip Op 51488(U) · 16 Misc 3d 132(A)
- Posture
- Article 75 petition
- Outcome
- Insurer prevailed
- Legal questions
- Court review of arbitration awards (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 101 Acupuncture, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51488(U))
| 101 Acupuncture, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 51488(U) [16 Misc 3d 132(A)] |
| Decided on July 12, 2007 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-902 K C.
against
Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arlene Bluth, J.), entered March 2, 2006. The judgment denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award and dismissed the proceeding.
Judgment modified by adding thereto a provision confirming the master arbitrator’s award; as so modified, affirmed without costs.
In Matter of Petrofsky (Allstate Ins. Co.) (54 NY2d 207, 211 [1981]), the Court of Appeals examined the scope of a master arbitrator’s powers in reviewing the decision of an arbitrator and stated that the master arbitrator was “limited to reviewing on the
basis of the limited grounds enumerated by article 75 (CPLR 7511; Siegel, New York Practice, § 602, pp 865-866) and to reviewing whether the arbitrator acted in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious, irrational or without a plausible basis.” Moreover, while the regulations broadened the master arbitrator’s review to include questions of law which were not normally reviewable under CPLR article 75, the master arbitrator was “expressly precluded from reviewing factual or procedural errors” (id.).
The Appellate Division, Second Department, in applying Petrofsky, has held that if the arbitrator’s determination is challenged based upon an alleged factual error, the master arbitrator must uphold the determination if it has a rational basis. Similarly, if a master arbitrator determines that the arbitrator incorrectly applied substantive law, that determination may not be set aside unless it is irrational. The master arbitrator’s determination of the law need not be correct; mere errors of law are insufficient to warrant setting aside the master arbitrator’s award, and on questions of substantive law, the determination should be upheld if there is a rational [*2]basis for it (see Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Spine Americare Med., 294 AD2d 574, 576-577 [2002]). The court has recently stated that an award will be upheld where it was “not arbitrary, capricious or irrational (see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii])” and where it has not been shown that the arbitrator acted so impartially or improperly as to prejudice the rights of one of
the parties or the integrity of the arbitration process (Matter of Mounier v American Tr. Ins. Co., 36 AD3d 617 [2007]).
Upon a review of the record, we find that there was a rational basis for the determination of the master arbitrator upholding the arbitrator’s award which denied petitioner’s claims for first-party no-fault benefits. Accordingly, the court below properly denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award. However, upon denying the petition, the court was required, pursuant to CPLR 7511 (e), to confirm the award (see Matter of Exclusive Med. & Diagnostic v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 306 AD2d 476 [2003]).
We further note that the record reveals that the petition was timely filed (CPLR
7511 [a]).
Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 12, 2007
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.
When does a court vacate, modify or confirm a no-fault arbitrator’s or master arbitrator’s award under CPLR article 75?
This decision: No ground for vacatur or modification shown: the award is confirmed or left in place
Held the master arbitrator's affirmance had a rational basis, since mere errors of law do not warrant vacatur and only irrational determinations may be set aside, so the timely petition was denied and the award confirmed.
Of the 119 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 92 (this one included) are in the same category. One decision in other departments that cites or is cited by this one is on the full map.
Cited by
- Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Professional Chiropractic Care P.C. (2015 NY Slip Op 50936(U))A rational master arbitration award is not subject to judicial vacatur for mere errors of substantive law.
Similar decisions
- 101 Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51118(U))The provider's petition to vacate a master arbitration award denying no-fault benefits was denied, and the insurer's cross petition was granted.
- Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth. (2018 NY Slip Op 08641)The master arbitrator's confirmation of an award denying benefits for exhausted policy limits had evidentiary support and a rational basis.
- Diamond Chiropractic, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51286(U))CPLR 7511 (e) requires confirmation of an award when a petition to vacate the master arbitrator's determination is denied.
- 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50090(U))A no-fault arbitrator may raise any issue the arbitrator deems relevant under 11 NYCRR 65-4.4 (e) and 65-4.5 (o).
- 563 Grand Med., P.C. v State-Wide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50362(U))Denial of a petition to vacate a master arbitrator's award requires confirmation of the award under CPLR 7511 (e).