• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
  • Services
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Ask No-Fault AI
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Services
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Ask No-Fault AI
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Award Volume
    • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Carrier Data
    • Provider / Attorney Data
    • Arbitration Pro Extension
  • About Us
  • Contact
March 1, 2017

Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp. (2017 NY Slip Op 01552)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-geico-ins-co-v-aaamg-leasing-corp-2017-ny-slip-op01552/

Court
Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided
March 1, 2017
Citation
2017 NY Slip Op 01552 · 148 AD3d 703
Posture
Article 75 petition
Outcome
Provider prevailed
Earlier history
Appeal from Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp. (2016 NY Slip Op 03879) (Reversed)
Later treatment
Distinguished in 1, contrasted (cf., but see) in 1 and followed in 26 later decisions (see Cited by)
Issues
Interest and attorney fees
Legal questions
Attorney's fees: article 75 and appeals (see the maps)
Cite as
Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp., 148 AD3d 703 (2d Dept 2017)

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.

A provider may recover an additional attorney's fee for an article 75 proceeding to confirm or vacate a master arbitration award. On reargument, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, granted the provider's fee request, and remitted for determination of the amount. Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4) authorize the adjudicating court to fix the fee for those services. The unexplained denial below could not stand: the court had authority to award a fee, and any merits basis was not evident from the record. The fee determination must state its evidentiary basis and exclude time spent applying for and substantiating the fee.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp. (2017 NY Slip Op 01552)

Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp.
2017 NY Slip Op 01552 [148 AD3d 703]
March 1, 2017
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 3, 2017

[*1]

 In the Matter of GEICO Insurance Company, Respondent,
v
AAAMG Leasing Corp., as Assignee of Dawn Channer, Appellant.

Israel Israel & Purdy, LLP, Great Neck, NY (Justin Skaferowsky of counsel), for appellant.

Printz & Goldstein, Woodbury, NY (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for respondent.

Motion by the appellant for leave to reargue an appeal from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered March 3, 2015, as denied that branch of its cross petition which was for an award of an additional attorney’s fee pursuant to Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-4.10 (j) (4), which was determined by decision and order of this Court dated May 18, 2016, or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this Court.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is,

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is for leave to reargue is granted, and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court dated May 18, 2016 (Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp., 139 AD3d 947 [2016]), is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order is substituted therefor:

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitration award dated August 4, 2014, AAAMG Leasing Corp., as assignee of Dawn Channer, appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered March 3, 2015, as denied that branch of its cross petition which was for an award of an additional attorney’s fee pursuant to Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-4.10 (j) (4).

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the cross petition of AAAMG Leasing Corp., as assignee of Dawn Channer, which was for an award of an additional attorney’s fee pursuant to Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-4.10 (j) (4) is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a determination of the amount of the additional attorney’s fee.

[*2] AAAMG Leasing Corp., as assignee of Dawn Channer (hereinafter the appellant), is a medical provider which made a claim for no-fault benefits from the petitioner insurance carrier. The petitioner denied the claim, stating that the supplies provided were not medically necessary.

The appellant sought arbitration of the claim, and in an award dated April 28, 2014, the arbitrator awarded the appellant the sum of $3,870.45, plus interest, and an attorney’s fee in the sum of $850.

The petitioner sought review of the arbitrator’s award by a master arbitrator. In a determination dated August 4, 2014, the master arbitrator affirmed the original arbitration award, and awarded an additional attorney’s fee in the sum of $650 pursuant to Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-4.10 (j) (2) (i), which the master arbitrator stated was the maximum allowable fee.

The petitioner then commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate the master arbitration award dated August 4, 2014. The appellant cross-petitioned to confirm the arbitration award, and sought an additional attorney’s fee pursuant to Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-4.10 (j) (4). The petitioner opposed that demand for relief. In the alternative, the petitioner stated that the appellant’s fee should be limited to $650.

In the order and judgment appealed from, the Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award. That branch of the cross petition which was for an award of an additional attorney’s fee was denied without comment. The appeal is limited to so much of the order and judgment as denied that branch of the cross petition which was for an award of an additional attorney’s fee.

The general rule is that in proceedings involving arbitration, as in other litigation, an attorney’s fee is not recoverable unless provided for by agreement or statute (see Myron Assoc. v Obstfeld, 224 AD2d 504 [1996]). 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 attorney’s reasonable fee, for services necessarily performed in connection with securing payment of the overdue claim, subject to [the] limitations promulgated by the superintendent in regulations.” As applicable here, the superintendent’s regulations provide that an attorney’s fee for services rendered in connection with “a court appeal from a master arbitration award . . . shall be fixed by the court adjudicating the matter” (Insurance Department Regulations [11 NYCRR] § 65-4.10 [j] [4]). The term “court appeal” applies to a proceeding such as this, taken pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate or confirm a master arbitration award (see Matter of Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 179 AD2d 645 [1992]).

Here, the appellant sought an attorney’s fee for services rendered in connection with the court proceedings on the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award and the cross petition to confirm the award. The Supreme Court denied the requested relief without stating the basis for that determination. To the extent the court denied relief on the ground that it lacked authority to award an additional attorney’s fee, the court erred. To the extent the court denied relief on the merits, the basis for that determination is not evident from the record. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a determination of the amount of the additional attorney’s fee to which the appellant is entitled, stating the evidentiary basis for the award. We note that the court shall not consider any time spent by the appellant’s attorney in applying for and substantiating his fee, as the appellant is not entitled to a “fee upon a fee” (Matter of Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 179 AD2d at 646). Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Legal questions

A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.

Attorney's fees: article 75 and appeals

Open the full map

How is the applicant’s attorney’s fee fixed for no-fault article 75 proceedings, de novo actions and appeals?

This decision: Applicant is entitled to a court-fixed fee for the proceeding or appeal; granted, or remitted to set the amount

Held an article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm a master award is a 'court appeal' under 65-4.10 (j) (4), reversed the unexplained denial and remitted to fix the fee with its evidentiary basis, excluding fees on fees.

  • Appellate DivisionApp Div 44
  • Appellate TermApp Term 3
  • Trial courtsTrial 11
2019, Appellate Division: 4 decisions (3 Fee due; court to fix, 1 No fee recoverable)2018, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 No fee recoverable)2017, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Fee due; court to fix)2016, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Limited to regulatory schedule)2025, Appellate Division: 13 decisions (4 Fee due; court to fix, 9 Amount fixed or upheld)2026, Appellate Division: 24 decisions (11 Fee due; court to fix, 3 Amount fixed or upheld, 4 Amount set aside, 6 No fee recoverable)2020, Appellate Term: 1 decision (1 Fee due; court to fix)2025, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (1 Fee due; court to fix, 1 Amount set aside)2023, Trial courts: 7 decisions (2 Amount fixed or upheld, 5 Limited to regulatory schedule)2024, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Amount fixed or upheld, 1 No fee recoverable)2026, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 No fee recoverable)2011, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Fee due; court to fix)This decision
201520202025
Fee due; court to fixAmount fixed or upheldAmount set asideLimited to regulatory scheduleNo fee recoverableThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followedDistinguished or limitedDeclined to follow, questioned, overruled or reversed

Of the 58 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 22 (this one included) are in the same category. 7 decisions in other departments that cite or are cited by this one are on the full map.

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

  • Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp. (2016 NY Slip Op 03879) ReversedA provider's attorney's fee for judicial review of a master arbitration award is fixed by the court under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4).

Cited by (44)

A label shows how the later decision treated this one.

  • John T. Mather Mem. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 24009) DistinguishedAn unopposed petition to confirm a favorable no-fault award does not support attorney fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4).
  • Matter of 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 04293) Contrasted (cf., but see)The provider's additional attorney's fee motion failed because no valid denied or overdue claim had been determined when it moved.
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Comfort Choice Chiropractic, P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 01363) FollowedThe provider was entitled to attorney's fees after defeating the insurer's petition to vacate its arbitration award.
  • Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture P.C. (2020 NY Slip Op 00048) FollowedA prevailing provider is entitled to court-fixed attorney fees for article 75 proceedings reviewing a master arbitration award and further appeals.
  • Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC (2019 NY Slip Op 08951) FollowedThe insurer failed to establish that the assignor was injured in the course of employment and eligible for workers' compensation.
  • Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture P.C. (2019 NY Slip Op 04087) FollowedAttorney fees for judicial review of a master arbitration award are fixed by the court under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4).
  • Matter of John T. Mather Mem. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 01788) FollowedA proceeding to confirm a master arbitration award is a court appeal entitling the provider to reasonable attorney's fees.
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Community Med. Imaging, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 01351) FollowedThe provider's attorney fee award was reversed because neither the order nor the record explained its amount.
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v SCOB, LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 01352) FollowedAn attorney fee award for an article 75 proceeding requires an evidentiary basis apparent from the determination or record.
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Baltic Supply Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 01349) FollowedThe provider's $300 attorney fee award was affirmed because it supplied no description of counsel's work or time and requested no hearing.
Show all 44 citing decisions
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Atlantic Med. Care, P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 07297) Followed
  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v North Shore Family Chiropractic PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50208(U)) Followed
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Midland Pharm. Yonkers Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 06193) Followed
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Patient Care Assoc. (2026 NY Slip Op 01783) Followed
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Allied Bd. Certified Physicians (2026 NY Slip Op 01782) Followed
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v YSC Trinity Acupuncture, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 01354) Followed
  • Matter of Integrated Specialty ASC, LLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 02651) Followed
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Ctr., LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 01350) Followed
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Stand Up MRI of Manhattan (2026 NY Slip Op 01353) Followed
  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Barakat PT PC (2026 NY Slip Op 01750) Followed
  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Brooklyn Med. Practice, PC (2025 NY Slip Op 50897(U) [86 Misc 3d 1208(A)]) Followed
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v YSC Trinity Acupuncture, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 01054) Followed
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v MTS Acupuncture, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 01053) Followed
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lenox Hill Hosp. (NSUH) (2026 NY Slip Op 01052) Followed
  • New York Recovery PT, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 25166) Followed
  • Quick Health Pharm. Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 25038) Followed
  • Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v WJW Med. Prods., Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 06472) Followed
  • AEE Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v Hereford Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 29102) Followed
  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Comfort Choice Chiropractic, P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 01337)
  • Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. (2018 NY Slip Op 03929)
  • Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp. (2016 NY Slip Op 03879)
  • Matter of Lam Quan MD, P.C. v LM Gen. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 03328)
  • Matter of Bay Needle Care Acupuncture v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07249)
  • Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07245)
  • Matter of Metro Pain Specialist P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50014(U))
  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Rutland Med., PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50814(U))
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Suh (2026 NY Slip Op 03161)
  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Beach Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 03771)
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Sovereign Med. Servs., P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 03160)
  • Time to Care Pharm. Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50126(U))
  • Matter of V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07265)
  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50506(U))
  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging PC (2023 NY Slip Op50538(U))
  • American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50953(U))

Similar decisions

  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Ctr., LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 02644)The provider's additional attorney's fee request failed because it was first raised on reargument and lacked supporting documentation.
  • Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Center, LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 06054)The provider's $250 attorney's fee award was upheld because it submitted no supporting affidavit or affirmation and requested no hearing.
Beynenson Law

Tech-driven New York no-fault collections for healthcare providers.

About the firm

Contact

  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Contact form

Research

  • Search Case Law & Regulations
  • New Decisions
  • Decisions by Court
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations
  • Claim Process & Deadlines
  • Ask No-Fault AI

Arbitration Data

  • Arbitrator Scorecard
  • Award Volume
  • Arbitrator / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Carrier Data
  • Provider / Attorney Data
  • Arbitration Pro Extension

©2026 The Beynenson Law Group, PC. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Site by khrystev.dev

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website provides general information, not legal advice, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential information through this site.