February 5, 2010

Barry Rubin, M.D., P.C. v Met Life Auto & Home Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50223(U))

Headnote

The court considered an appeal to vacate an arbitrator's award and a master arbitrator's award in a proceeding to recover first-party no-fault benefits that had been denied. The main issue was whether the arbitrator and the master arbitrator had properly denied the petitioner's claim for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The court held that the standard for judicial review of an award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding is whether the award had evidentiary support and was not arbitrary and capricious. Applying this standard, the court found no basis to vacate the arbitrator's award and the master arbitrator's award, and affirmed the lower court's decision to confirm the awards. The appellate court noted that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment, not an order.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Barry Rubin, M.D., P.C. v Met Life Auto & Home Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50223(U))

Barry Rubin, M.D., P.C. v Met Life Auto & Home Ins. Co. (2010 NY Slip Op 50223(U)) [*1]

Barry Rubin, M.D., P.C. v Met Life Auto & Home Ins. Co.

2010 NY Slip Op 50223(U) [26 Misc 3d 138(A)]

Decided on February 5, 2010

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 5, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., MOLIA and IANNACCI, JJ
2009-385 S C.

Barry Rubin, M.D., P.C. a/a/o KATHLEEN ROSALIA, Appellant,
against
Met Life Auto & Home Insurance Co., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated January 14, 2009. The order denied a petition to vacate a master arbitrator’s award and an arbitrator’s award, and confirmed the awards.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed without costs.

In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate an arbitrator’s award which denied petitioner’s claim for assigned first-party no-fault benefits, as well as a master arbitrator’s award which upheld the arbitrator’s award, respondent opposed the petition, asserting that the arbitrator had properly denied petitioner’s claim and that the master arbitrator had properly upheld the award. The District Court denied the petition and confirmed the awards. This appeal by petitioner ensued.

The standard applicable to judicial review of an award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding is whether the award had evidentiary support and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223 [1996]). Applying this standard to the instant proceeding, we find no basis to vacate the arbitrator’s award and the master arbitrator’s award. Accordingly, the District Court properly denied the petition to vacate said awards and, rather, properly confirmed them.

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

Nicolai, P.J., and Iannacci, J., concur.

Molia, J., taking no part.
Decision Date: February 05, 2010