December 11, 2006

Avenue N Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52549(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/avenue-n-med-p-c-v-new-york-cent-mut-fire-ins-co-2006-ny-slip-op-52549u/

Court: Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided: December 11, 2006
Citation: 2006 NY Slip Op 52549(U) · 14 Misc 3d 134(A)
Posture: Article 75 petition
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: CPLR article 75 (arbitration awards)
Legal questions: Court review of arbitration awards (see the maps)

Cite as

Avenue N Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 134(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 52549(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006)

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 first-party no-fault benefits through compulsory arbitration, where the arbitrator denied the claim and the master arbitrator affirmed. On review, the Appellate Term, Second Department, found a rational basis for the master arbitrator's determination and upheld denial of the provider's vacatur petition. It modified the order to add confirmation of the award, leaving the insurer's favorable award intact. The court also noted that CPLR 411 requires a special proceeding to terminate in a judgment rather than an order.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Avenue N Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52549(U))

[*1]

Avenue N Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

2006 NY Slip Op 52549(U) [14 Misc 3d 134(A)]

Decided on December 11, 2006

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 11, 2006

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and BELEN, JJ
2005-1034 K C.

Avenue N Medical, P.C. A/A/O LOUIS PELLOT, Appellant,
against
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered January 31, 2005. The order denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award.

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

Avenue N Medical, PC (Avenue) initiated this compulsory arbitration proceeding against New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company to recover $2,167.07 in first-party no-fault benefits for medical services rendered to its assignor for injuries he
sustained in an automobile accident. Following an arbitration hearing, by award dated February 18, 2004, the arbitrator denied Avenue’s claim, which decision Avenue appealed to the master arbitrator. By award dated August 13, 2004, the master arbitrator affirmed the arbitrator’s award. Avenue then commenced the instant special proceeding to vacate the award of the master arbitrator. By order entered January 31, 2005, the court below denied the petition.

Upon a review of the record, we find a rational basis for the determination of the master arbitrator (see e.g. Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224 [1982]; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207 [1981]; Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 AD2d [*2]442 [1980]). Consequently, 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., Weston Patterson and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 11, 2006

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.

Court review of arbitration awards

Open the full map

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 of the award denying the provider's claim had a rational basis, so vacatur was properly denied and the award had to be confirmed under CPLR 7511 (e).

Award standsVacated: irrational/arbitraryVacated: exceeded powerVacated: master oversteppedThis decision

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.

Similar decisions

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).
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).
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).
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.
101 Acupuncture, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51488(U))A master arbitrator's substantive legal determination must be upheld if it has a rational basis, even if legally erroneous.