May 28, 2008

101 Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51118(U))

Headnote

The court considered the determination of the master arbitrator upholding the arbitrator's award, which denied the petitioner's claim for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the master arbitrator's decision had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. The holding of the case was that the court affirmed the order without costs, stating that upon a review of the record, they found that the master arbitrator's determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the court properly denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award and granted the cross petition to confirm the award.

Reported in New York Official Reports at 101 Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51118(U))

101 Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 51118(U)) [*1]

101 Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

2008 NY Slip Op 51118(U) [19 Misc 3d 145(A)]

Decided on May 28, 2008

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 28, 2008

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and STEINHARDT, JJ
2006-1911 K C.

101 Acupuncture, P.C. a/a/o EDWIN BAEZ, Appellant,
against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Delores J. Thomas, J.), dated June 30, 2006. The order denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award and granted the cross petition to confirm the award.

Order affirmed without costs.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the determination of the master arbitrator upholding the arbitrator’s award, which denied petitioner’s claim for assigned first-party no-fault benefits, had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see e.g. Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214 [1996]; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207 [1981]; Matter of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v New York State Ins. Fund, 47 AD3d 633 [2008]; Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 AD2d 442 [1980]). Accordingly, the court below properly denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award and granted the cross petition to confirm the award.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Steinhardt, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 28, 2008