March 17, 2016

Encompass Ins. Co. v Rockaway Family Med. Care, P.C. (2016 NY Slip Op 01922)

Headnote

In this case, Encompass Insurance Company (respondent) sought to vacate the master arbitration decision of Frank G. Godson and reinstate the award of arbitrator Laura Yantsos. The main issue was whether petitioner's second follow-up request for an examination under oath was timely, as it was sent 11 days after the respondent failed to appear on the date set in the first request, with the 10th day falling on a Sunday. The court unanimously affirmed the order and judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, which vacated the master arbitration decision and reinstated the award of the arbitrator Laura Yantsos. The court held that plaintiff was entitled to an extension of time to send its second follow-up request, in accordance with General Construction Law § 25-a, and that the second request was therefore timely.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Encompass Ins. Co. v Rockaway Family Med. Care, P.C. (2016 NY Slip Op 01922)

Encompass Ins. Co. v Rockaway Family Med. Care, P.C.

2016 NY Slip Op 01922 [137 AD3d 582]

March 17, 2016

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, April 27, 2016

[*1]

Encompass Insurance Company, Respondent,
v
Rockaway Family Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of Farah Obas, Appellant.

Law Office of George T. Lewis, Jr., Syosset (George T. Lewis, Jr. Of counsel), for appellant.

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano LLP, Melville (Mitchell L. Kaufman of counsel), for respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered August 25, 2014, vacating the master arbitration decision of Frank G. Godson dated December 17, 2013, and reinstating the award of arbitrator Laura Yantsos dated September 25, 2013, unanimously affirmed.

It is undisputed that petitioner’s second follow-up request for an examination under oath was sent 11 days after respondent failed to appear on the date set in the first request and that the 10th day fell on a Sunday (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]). Plaintiff was entitled to an extension of time to the next business day to send its second follow-up request (see General Construction Law § 25-a). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.