January 8, 2008
563 Grand Med., P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50090(U))
Headnote
Reported in New York Official Reports at 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (2008 NY Slip Op 50090(U))
| 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 50090(U) [18 Misc 3d 132(A)] |
| Decided on January 8, 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| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-1100 K C.
against
Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Bernard J. Graham, J.), entered January 19, 2006. The judgment denied the petition to vacate a master arbitrator’s award.
Judgment modified by adding thereto a provision confirming the master arbitrator’s award; as so modified, affirmed without costs.
563 Grand Medical, P.C. commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate a master arbitrator’s award which denied its claims for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. After respondent opposed the petition, the court denied the petition. This appeal by petitioner ensued.
An arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding to recover no-fault benefits may raise any issue which the arbitrator deems relevant (see Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-4.4 [e]; § 65-4.5 [o]; see also Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 872 [2003]; 563 Grand Med., P.C. v New York State Ins. Dept., 24 AD3d 413 [2005]; cf. Matter of Health & Endurance Med., P.C. v Deerbrook Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 857 [2007]). The master arbitrator determined that, based upon the documents submitted to the arbitrator, the arbitrator had a rational basis for finding that petitioner was not entitled to recover because, among other things, petitioner may have been seeking to recover for work performed by an independent contractor. In our view, the master arbitrator’s determination was not arbitrary, capricious or irrational (see Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207 [1981]). 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 [*2][2003]).
Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 8, 2008