October 21, 2026

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Pfeffer (2026 NY Slip Op 06113)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-pfeffer-2026-ny-slip-op-06113/

Court
Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided
October 21, 2026
Citation
2026 NY Slip Op 06113
Posture
Article 75 petition
Outcome
Provider prevailed
Issues
Interest and attorney fees
Cite as
Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Pfeffer, 2026 NY Slip Op 06113 (2d Dept 2026)

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.

The provider's attorney fee award was reversed because neither the court nor the record supplied a basis for the amount awarded. After the insurer's CPLR article 75 petition to vacate a master arbitration award was denied and the provider's cross-petition granted, the provider sought $4,300 in fees but received $1,000. Under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), recoverable fees include representation in award confirmation or vacatur proceedings. Counsel must establish reasonable hours and prevailing rates, although the court may consider its familiarity with the litigation. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment's fee award and remitted for a new determination stating its evidentiary basis; the remaining contentions were not reached.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Pfeffer (2026 NY Slip Op 06113)

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Pfeffer
2026 NY Slip Op 06113
Decided on October 21, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


In the Matter of American Transit Insurance Company, respondent,

v

Michelle Pfeffer, etc., appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on October 21, 2026

2024-11510, (Index No. 530675/22)

Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.

Valerie Brathwaite Nelson

Carl J. Landicino

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Roman Kravchenko, Melville, NY, for appellant.

Larkin Farrell, LLC, New York, NY (William R. Larkin III of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitration award dated July 21, 2022, Michelle Pfeffer appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Richard Velasquez, J.), entered October 1, 2024. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon an order of the same court dated June 16, 2023, inter alia, in effect, granting that branch of the cross-petition of Michelle Pfeffer which was pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) for an award of attorneys’ fees, awarded Michelle Pfeffer attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) in the sum of only $1,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) in accordance herewith.

The petitioner, an insurer, commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitration award confirming an arbitration award in favor of Michelle Pfeffer, a medical provider. Pfeffer filed a cross-petition to confirm the master arbitration award and for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4). In an order dated June 16, 2023, the Supreme Court, in effect, denied the petition and granted the cross-petition.

Thereafter, Pfeffer submitted an attorney’s affirmation describing the nature of the work performed and the amount of time expended on the matter and seeking an award of attorneys’ fees in connection with the proceeding in the sum of $4,300. In a judgment entered October 1, 2024, the Supreme Court, inter alia, awarded Pfeffer attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) in the sum of $1,000. Pfeffer appeals, contending that the award was inadequate.

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106(a), if a valid claim or portion of a claim for no-fault benefits is overdue, “the claimant shall also be entitled to recover his [or her] attorney’s reasonable fee, for services necessarily performed in connection with securing payment of the overdue claim, subject to limitations promulgated by the superintendent in regulations” (id.; [*2]see Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Integrated Medicine of S.I., P.C., 244 AD3d 724, 724-725). “The recoverable attorney’s fees include those related to representation in a CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm a master arbitration award, and, in such instances, ‘shall be fixed by the court adjudicating the matter'” (Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Integrated Medicine of S.I., P.C., 244 AD3d at 725, quoting 11 NYCRR 65-4.10[j][4]; see Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Comfort Choice Chiropractic, P.C., 236 AD3d 782, 783).

“The determination of what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee is a matter within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” (Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Integrated Medicine of S.I., P.C., 244 AD3d at 725 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v YD Med. Servs., P.C., 244 AD3d 726, 727). “The attorney bears the burden of establishing the reasonable value of the services rendered, based upon a showing of the hours reasonably expended and the prevailing hourly rate for similar legal work in the community” (Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Integrated Medicine of S.I., P.C., 244 AD3d at 725 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v YD Med. Servs., P.C., 244 AD3d at 727). “In determining the reasonable value of the services rendered, ‘the court may consider a number of factors, including . . . the time and labor required, the difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to handle the problems presented, the lawyer’s experience, ability, and reputation, the customary fee charged for similar services, and the results obtained'” (Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Community Med. Imaging, P.C., 247 AD3d 877, 878, quoting Diggs v Oscar De La Renta, LLC, 169 AD3d 1003, 1005).

Here, while the Supreme Court “was not obligated to accept [Pfeffer’s] representation as to [her] attorney’s fee, and the court could rely upon its ‘familiarity with the nature and complexity of the litigation, the time, effort and skill required for its resolution and the fees customarily charged for similar matters’ to determine a reasonable attorney’s fee” (Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v SCOB, LLC, 247 AD3d 879, 881 [citation omitted], quoting Ricciuti v Lombardi, 256 AD2d 892, 893), the court awarded Pfeffer attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) in the sum of only $1,000 without stating the basis for that determination. Nor is the basis for that determination evident from the record. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the amount of the award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4), stating the evidentiary basis for the award.

The parties’ remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination.

IANNACCI, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, LANDICINO and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Similar decisions