June 25, 2007

Diamond Chiropractic, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51286(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court were that Diamond Chiropractic, P.C. appealed a judgment from the Civil Court of the City of New York, which denied their petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award and dismissed the proceeding. The main issue decided was whether there was a rational basis for the determination of the master arbitrator upholding the arbitrator's award which denied petitioner's claims for first-party no-fault benefits. The holding of the court was that there was indeed a rational basis for the determination of the master arbitrator, and therefore the judgment was modified to confirm the master arbitrator's award. The court also noted that the petition was timely filed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Diamond Chiropractic, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51286(U))

Diamond Chiropractic, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 51286(U)) [*1]

Diamond Chiropractic, P.C. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co.

2007 NY Slip Op 51286(U) [16 Misc 3d 129(A)]

Decided on June 25, 2007

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 25, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2006-947 K C.

Diamond Chiropractic, P.C. a/a/o JULIO MEJIA-TEJADA, Appellant,
against
Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Arlene Bluth, J.), entered March 2, 2006. The judgment denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award and dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment 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 petitioner’s claims for first-party no-fault benefits (see e.g. Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207 [1981]; 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. 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 further note that the record reveals that the petition was timely filed (CPLR
7511 [a]).

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.