[*1]

Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP (Thomas Torto and Jason Levine, New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Stefan Belinfanti and David M. Gottlieb of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an award of a master arbitrator dated January 26, 2016, Country-Wide Ins. Co. appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Karen B. Rothenberg, J.), dated October 21, 2016. The judgment, upon an order of the same court dated October 20, 2016, granting the petition, vacating the master arbitrator’s award dated January 26, 2016, and confirming the original arbitrator’s award dated September 22, 2015, is in favor of the petitioner and against Country-Wide Ins. Co. in the total sum of $8,319.61.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of the amount of an additional attorney’s fee to be awarded to the petitioner pursuant to Insurance Department Regulations (see 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 [j] [4]).

V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. (hereinafter V.S.), is the assignee of a claim for no-fault benefits for treatment it rendered to Morris Collins. The carrier, Country-Wide Ins. Co. (hereinafter Country-Wide), denied the claim on several grounds. Country-Wide contended that Collins had not appeared at scheduled independent medical examinations and that V.S. had failed to appear at scheduled examinations under oath. Country-Wide also contended that V.S. was fraudulently incorporated (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]). V.S. submitted the claim to arbitration. The arbitrator accepted Country-Wide’s contention regarding Collins’s failure to appear at independent medical examinations, but rejected Country-Wide’s contention regarding V.S.’s failure to appear at examinations under oath. The arbitrator also rejected Country-Wide’s contention as to V.S.’s alleged fraudulent incorporation, finding that Country-Wide had not met its burden of proof. Accordingly, the arbitrator entered an award for the portion of the claim she found Country-Wide had improperly denied.

On Country-Wide’s appeal to a master arbitrator, the master arbitrator found, as relevant to this appeal, that the original arbitrator’s determination to reject the fraudulent incorporation defense was irrational, arbitrary, capricious, and incorrect as a matter of law. The master arbitrator vacated the original arbitrator’s award and remitted the matter to a new arbitrator on the issue of fraudulent incorporation. V.S. commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate the master arbitrator’s award. The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the master arbitrator’s award, confirmed the original arbitrator’s award, and entered a judgment accordingly. Country-Wide appeals.

A master arbitrator may not review the facts by weighing the evidence, assessing the credibility of witnesses, or making independent findings of fact (see Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 212 [1981]). A master arbitrator’s review powers, however, do include reviewing the facts to determine “whether or not the evidence is sufficient, as a matter of law, to support the determination of the arbitrator” (id. at 212). Here, there is no rational basis for the determination of the master arbitrator that the original arbitrator committed an error of law in rejecting Country-Wide’s fraudulent incorporation defense (cf. Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C., 162 AD3d 407 [2018]; Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C., 155 AD3d 885, 886-887 [2017]). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court that the master arbitrator’s award should be vacated and the original arbitrator’s award confirmed.

Moreover, as V.S. contends and Country-Wide concedes, V.S. is entitled to an attorney’s fee for this appeal pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j), to be fixed by the Supreme Court (see Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Acupuncture, P.C., 167 AD3d 404, 405 [2018]; Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C., 162 AD3d at 408; Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp., 148 AD3d 703, 706 [2017]). The matter is therefore remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for that purpose. Balkin, J.P., Roman, Brathwaite Nelson and Christopher, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP (Thomas Torto, New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Stefan Belinfanti and David M. Gottlieb of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an award of a master arbitrator dated October 10, 2014, Country-Wide Ins. Co. appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Larry D. Martin, J.), dated February 6, 2017. The judgment, upon an order of the same court dated September 23, 2015, granting the petition, vacating the master arbitrator’s award dated October 10, 2014, and directing entry of a judgment in favor of the petitioner in the principal sum of $3,650 plus statutory interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs and disbursements, is in favor of the petitioner and against Country-Wide Ins. Co. in the total sum of $10,469.82.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the master arbitrator’s award dated October 10, 2014, is confirmed, and the order dated September 23, 2015, is modified accordingly.

V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. (hereinafter V.S.), is the assignee of a claim for no-fault benefits for treatment it rendered to Eric Pascal. After the carrier, Country-Wide Ins. Co. (hereinafter Country-Wide), denied the claim, V.S. submitted the claim to arbitration. The arbitrator denied V.S.’s claim, finding that the evidence established that V.S. was fraudulently incorporated (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]). On appeal, a master arbitrator affirmed the original arbitrator’s award, finding that it was not arbitrary and capricious. V.S. then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate the master arbitrator’s award. The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the master arbitrator’s award, and entered a judgment in favor of V.S. in the amount of the claim for no-fault benefits plus statutory interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs and disbursements. Country-Wide appeals.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, V.S. failed to demonstrate any grounds for vacating the master arbitrator’s award. A court reviewing the award of a master arbitrator is limited to the grounds set forth in CPLR article 75, which include, in this compulsory arbitration, the question of whether the determination had evidentiary support, was rational, or had a plausible basis (see Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 212 [1981]). Here, as explained in this Court’s decision and order in Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (176 AD3d 800 [2019] [decided herewith]), since the determination of the master arbitrator affirming the original arbitrator’s award had evidentiary support and was not irrational, it is not subject to vacatur by the courts (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223-224 [1996]; Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 167 AD3d 869 [2018]), even if the master arbitrator committed an error of law (see Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, 535 [2010]; Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d at 223-224; cf. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C., 155 AD3d 885, 886-887 [2017]). Accordingly, the petition should have been denied and the master arbitrator’s award should have been confirmed. Balkin, J.P., Roman, Brathwaite Nelson and Christopher, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP (Thomas Torto, New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Stefan Belinfanti and David M. Gottlieb of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an award of a master arbitrator dated March 18, 2014, Country-Wide Ins. Co. appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Peter P. Sweeney, J.), dated July 31, 2015. The judgment, upon an order of the same court dated April 2, 2015, granting the petition, vacating the master arbitrator’s award dated March 18, 2014, and confirming the original arbitrator’s award dated December 13, 2013, is in favor of the petitioner and against Country-Wide Ins. Co. in the total sum of $1,318.91.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of the amount of an additional attorney’s fee to be awarded to the petitioner pursuant to Insurance Department Regulations (see 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 [j] [4]).

Bay Needle Care Acupuncture (hereinafter Bay Needle) is the assignee of a claim for no-fault benefits for treatment it rendered to Kareem Edgar. The carrier, Country-Wide Ins. Co. (hereinafter Country-Wide), denied the claim, and Bay Needle submitted the claim to arbitration. As relevant to this appeal, the arbitrator rejected Country-Wide’s contention that Bay Needle was fraudulently incorporated (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313 [2005]; Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 150 AD3d 192 [2017], affd 33 NY3d 389 [2019]). The arbitrator stated that he found “no reasonable or credible evidence” establishing the defense, and he found in favor of Bay Needle. On Country-Wide’s appeal, a master arbitrator vacated the original arbitrator’s award and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a new arbitrator. The master arbitrator stated that the evidence of fraudulent incorporation presented by Country-Wide “was substantial.” Bay Needle commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate the master arbitrator’s award. The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the master arbitrator’s award, confirmed the original arbitrator’s award in favor of Bay Needle, and entered a judgment accordingly. Country-Wide appeals.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the master arbitrator exceeded his power in vacating the original arbitrator’s award after, in effect, weighing the evidence and coming to a different conclusion than the original arbitrator as to what that evidence proved (see Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 212 [1981]). As such, we agree with the court’s determination to vacate the master arbitrator’s award and to confirm the original arbitrator’s award in favor of Bay Needle (see Matter of Jordan v Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 309 AD2d 803, 804 [2003]; cf. Matter of Jasser v Allstate Ins. Co., 77 AD3d 751, 752 [2010]).

Moreover, as Bay Needle contends and Country-Wide concedes, Bay Needle is entitled to an attorney’s fee for this appeal pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j), to be fixed by the Supreme Court (see Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Acupuncture, P.C., 167 AD3d 404, 405 [2018]; Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C., 162 AD3d 407, 408 [2018]; Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp., 148 AD3d 703, 706 [2017]). The matter is therefore remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for that purpose. Balkin, J.P., Roman, Brathwaite Nelson and Christopher, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP (Thomas Torto, New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Stefan Belinfanti and David M. Gottlieb of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an award of a master arbitrator dated October 10, 2014, Country-Wide Ins. Co. appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernard J. Graham, J.), dated July 31, 2015. The judgment, upon an undated order of the same court granting the petition, vacating the master arbitrator’s award dated October 10, 2014, and remitting the matter to arbitration, is in favor of the petitioner and against Country-Wide Ins. Co. in the total sum of $625.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the master arbitrator’s award dated October 10, 2014, is confirmed, and the undated order is modified accordingly.

Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. (hereinafter Acuhealth), is the assignee of a claim for no-fault benefits for treatment it rendered to Hector Rojos. After the carrier, Country-Wide Ins. Co. (hereinafter Country-Wide), denied the claim, Acuhealth submitted the claim to arbitration. The arbitrator denied Acuhealth’s claim, finding, inter alia, that the evidence established that Acuhealth was fraudulently incorporated and thus not entitled to reimbursement under the No-Fault Law (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 320-321 [2005]).

On appeal, a master arbitrator affirmed the original arbitrator’s award in favor of Country-Wide. Acuhealth then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate the master arbitrator’s award. The Supreme Court determined that a prior Supreme Court determination involving the same parties was entitled to preclusive effect. Accordingly, the court granted Acuhealth’s petition, vacated the master arbitrator’s award, remitted the matter to arbitration, and awarded Acuhealth costs and disbursements in the sum of $625. Country-Wide appeals.

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that Acuhealth was entitled to vacatur of the master arbitrator’s award on the ground of collateral estoppel. The prior decision on which the court relied merely stated that Acuhealth’s petition to vacate a master arbitrator’s award was granted, without indicating on what basis the petition was granted or what issues were being decided and in what manner. Under those circumstances, Acuhealth failed to establish that the issue on which it sought collateral estoppel effect in this proceeding was identical to an issue which was raised and necessarily decided in the prior proceeding (see Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 NY2d 343, 349 [1999]; Von Maack v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 140 AD3d 1055, 1056 [2016]).

Acuhealth failed to demonstrate any additional ground for vacating the master arbitrator’s award. “[A]n arbitrator’s rulings, unlike a trial court’s, are largely unreviewable” (Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, 534 [2010]). A court reviewing the award of a master arbitrator is limited to the grounds set forth in CPLR article 75, which include, in this compulsory arbitration, the question of whether the determination had evidentiary support, was rational, or had a plausible basis (see Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 212 [1981]). Notably, the master arbitrator’s review power is broader than that of the courts’ because it includes the power to review for errors of law (see id. at 211-212; 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 [a] [4]). In contrast, the courts “generally will not vacate an arbitrator’s award where the error claimed is the incorrect application of a rule of substantive law, unless it is so irrational as to require vacatur” (Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224, 232 [1982] [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Spine Americare Med., 294 AD2d 574, 576 [2002]).

Here, since Country-Wide submitted evidence tending to support its fraudulent incorporation defense, it cannot be said that the determination of the master arbitrator affirming the original arbitrator’s award lacked evidentiary support. Nor can it be said that the determination to affirm the original arbitrator, who supported her determination with reasons based on the evidence, lacked a rational basis. Thus, even if it was an error of law to conclude that Country-Wide proved its defense as a matter of law (see Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am. v Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C., 155 AD3d 885, 886-887 [2017]), the master arbitrator’s determination is not subject to vacatur by the courts on the mere basis of that error of law (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223-224 [1996]; Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 167 AD3d 869 [2018]). Notably, this Court’s decision in Nationwide Affinity, which is contrary to the conclusion of the master arbitrator in this case, was not published until after the master arbitrator’s award was rendered. Moreover, Country-Wide submitted evidence in support of its defense which, while inadmissible, could be considered by the original arbitrator in this case, who, unlike a court deciding a summary judgment motion like that at issue in Nationwide Affinity, was not bound by the rules of evidence (see Matter of Fagan v Village of Harriman, 140 AD3d 868 [2016]).

Accordingly, the petition should have been denied and the master arbitrator’s award should have been confirmed. Balkin, J.P., Roman, Brathwaite Nelson and Christopher, JJ., concur.

[*1]

Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP (Thomas Torto, New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.

Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Stefan Belinfanti and David M. Gottlieb of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an award of a master arbitrator dated February 25, 2016, Country-Wide Ins. Co. appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kathy J. King, J.), dated October 27, 2016. The judgment, upon an order of the same court dated October 26, 2016, granting the petition, vacating the master arbitrator’s award dated February 25, 2016, and confirming the original arbitrator’s award dated December 4, 2015, is in favor of the petitioner and against Country-Wide Ins. Co. in the total sum of $13,864.96.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of the amount of an additional attorney’s fee to be awarded to the petitioner pursuant to Insurance Department Regulations (see 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 [j] [4]).

Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. (hereinafter Acuhealth), is the assignee of a claim for no-fault benefits for treatment it rendered to Massiel Olsen. After the carrier, Country-Wide Ins. Co. (hereinafter Country-Wide), denied the claim, Acuhealth submitted the claim to arbitration. The arbitrator, upon refusing to consider Country-Wide’s defenses on the ground that Country-Wide’s submissions to the arbitrator were late, with no excuse for their lateness, found in favor of Acuhealth. On Country-Wide’s appeal, the master arbitrator vacated the award and issued a new award in favor of Country-Wide based on the defense that Acuhealth was fraudulently incorporated, which the original arbitrator had refused to consider on the ground that it was untimely submitted. Acuhealth then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate the master arbitrator’s award. The Supreme Court granted Acuhealth’s petition, vacated the master arbitrator’s award in favor of Country-Wide, and confirmed the original arbitrator’s award in favor of Acuhealth. Country-Wide appeals.

An arbitrator acts within his or her discretionary authority by refusing to entertain late submissions (see Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Coastal Anesthesia Servs., LLC, 145 AD3d 644, 645 [2016]; Matter of Mercury Cas. Co. v Healthmakers Med. Group, P.C., 67 AD3d 1017, 1017 [2009]; Matter of Green v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 755, 756 [2005]). Here, in rejecting the original arbitrator’s proper exercise of his discretionary authority, and in passing, de novo, upon factual questions concerning the validity of Country-Wide’s defense that Acuhealth was fraudulently incorporated (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mallela, 4 NY3d 313, 320-321 [2005]), the master arbitrator exceeded his power (see Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224, 230-231 [1982]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Keegan, 201 AD2d 724, 725 [1994]). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to vacate the master arbitrator’s award and confirm the original arbitrator’s award in favor of Acuhealth.

Moreover, as Acuhealth contends and Country-Wide concedes, Acuhealth is entitled to an attorney’s fee for this appeal pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j), to be fixed by the Supreme Court (see Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Acupuncture, P.C., 167 AD3d 404, 405 [2018]; Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C., 162 AD3d 407, 408 [2018]; Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp., 148 AD3d 703, 706 [2017]). The matter is therefore remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for that purpose.

Acuhealth’s remaining contention is without merit. Balkin, J.P., Roman, Brathwaite Nelson and Christopher, JJ., concur.

Decided on October 4, 2019

Petitioner appeals from an order and judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Mary V. Rosado, J.), entered on or about April 26, 2018, which denied its petition to vacate a master arbitration award in favor of respondent and confirmed the award.

Per Curiam.

Order and judgment (Mary V. Rosado, J.), entered on or about April 26, 2018, affirmed, with $25 costs.

Petitioner failed to demonstrate the existence of any of the statutory grounds for vacating the Master Arbitrator’s award (see CPLR 7511[b]). “Since the master arbitrator found that the no-fault arbitrator reached the decision in a rational manner and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious, incorrect as a matter of law, in excess of policy limits, or in conflict with other no-fault arbitration proceedings there were no grounds for its vacatur; the motion court correctly upheld the master arbitrator’s determination” (Matter of Miller v Elrac, LLC, 170 AD3d 436 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 907 [2019]). In particular, since the arbitrator’s rejection of petitioner’s IME no show defense was based, inter alia, upon her review of the proof of mailing the IME notices, the claimant’s appearance at eight prior scheduled IMEs and petitioner’s treatment of claimant as an adversary, the determination was therefore rational, as it was based on the evidence before her (see Matter of Amtrust Group v American Tr. Ins. Co., 161 AD3d 537 [2018]; Park v Long Is. Ins. Co., 13 AD3d 506 [2004]; Empire Mut. Ins. Co. v Hornick, 189 AD2d 707 [1993]).

We note that petitioner does not dispute that the parties agreed, in effect, to bifurcate the arbitration so as to limit the issue before the arbitrator to a determination of the IME no show defense. In the circumstances, petitioner’s complaint that the arbitrator did not resolve other issues is unavailing (see American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v Allied Capital Corp., 167 AD3d 142 [2018]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Decision Date: October 04, 2019