November 20, 2013

Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Wilen (2013 NY Slip Op 07727)

Headnote

The case of Matter of Allstate Insurance Company v. Daniel Wilen involved a proceeding to vacate the award of a master arbitrator, which vacated an award of an arbitrator. The appellate division upheld the Supreme Court's decision to deny the petition and confirm the master arbitrator's award. The court determined that the master arbitrator did not exceed his powers and was empowered to apply the law to the given set of facts, even if his conclusion differed from that of the arbitrator. The master arbitrator properly vacated the arbitration award which was "incorrect as a matter of law" in light of the evidence. The petitioner's remaining contentions were found to be without merit by the court.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Wilen (2013 NY Slip Op 07727)

Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Wilen

2013 NY Slip Op 07727 [111 AD3d 824]

November 20, 2013

Appellate Division, Second Department

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

As corrected through Wednesday, December 25, 2013

In the Matter of Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant,
v
Daniel Wilen, Respondent.

—[*1] Peter C. Merani, New York, N.Y. (Mark J. Fenelon of counsel), for appellant.

Peter J. DiConza, Jr., Manhasset, N.Y., for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate the award of a master arbitrator dated June 6, 2012, which vacated an award of an arbitrator dated March 5, 2012, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J.), entered October 1, 2012, which, inter alia, denied the petition and confirmed the master arbitrator’s award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“A master arbitrator is empowered to apply the law to a given set of facts even if his or her conclusion differs from that of the arbitrator” (Matter of Empire Ins. Co. v Lam, 273 AD2d 469, 470 [2000]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the master arbitrator did not exceed his powers. The master arbitrator properly vacated the arbitration award which, in light of the evidence, was “incorrect as a matter of law” (former 11 NYCRR 65.19 [a] [4]; see Insurance Law § 5106; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207 [1981]; Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v Spilotros, 257 AD2d 577 [1999]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.