• 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 26, 2007

563 Grand Med., P.C. v State-Wide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50362(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/563-grand-med-p-c-v-state-wide-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50362u/

Court
Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided
February 26, 2007
Citation
2007 NY Slip Op 50362(U) · 14 Misc 3d 142(A)
Posture
Article 75 petition
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
CPLR article 75 (arbitration awards)
Cite as
563 Grand Med., P.C. v State-Wide Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 142(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 50362(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007)

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.

Denial of a petition to vacate a master arbitrator's award requires confirmation of the award under CPLR 7511 (e). The provider sought to vacate a master arbitrator's determination upholding an arbitration award denying first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term, Second Department, found a rational basis for that determination and upheld denial of the petition. It modified the order to add confirmation of the award, thereby sustaining the insurer's position. The court also noted that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment rather than an order under CPLR 411.

Reported in New York Official Reports at 563 Grand Med., P.C. v State-Wide Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50362(U))

[*1]
563 Grand Med., P.C. v State-Wide Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 50362(U) [14 Misc 3d 142(A)]
Decided on February 26, 2007
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected in part through November 4, 2011; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on February 26, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2005-1211 K C.
563 Grand Medical, P.C., a/a/o Marco Gist, Appellant,

against

State-Wide Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin S. Garson, J.), entered May 27, 2005. The order denied the petition to vacate a master arbitrator’s award.

Order modified by adding thereto a provision confirming the master arbitrator’s award; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

Upon a review of the record, we find a rational basis for the determination of the master arbitrator upholding the arbitrator’s award which denied the petitioner’s claim for first-party no-fault benefits (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 [2003]).

We note that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment, not an order (see CPLR 411).

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 26, 2007

Similar decisions

  • 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 Nationwide Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 51493(U))The provider's arbitration-vacatur petition failed because its sole supporting document was not affirmed under penalties of perjury.
  • SP Med., P.C. v General Assur. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 52452(U))The provider's petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award was denied because the record supplied a rational basis for the award.
  • S.P. Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51978(U))An award must be confirmed under CPLR 7511 (e) when a petition to vacate it is denied.
  • Superior Med. Equip. v Hudson Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50411(U))A court denying a petition to vacate a master arbitrator's award must confirm the award under CPLR 7511 (e).
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.