November 9, 2006

Matter of Hudson Med. P.C. v MVAIC (2006 NY Slip Op 52248(U))

Headnote

The assignee provider petitioned to vacate a master arbitrator's award in a no-fault arbitration against MVAIC, challenging the arbitrator's calculation of interest. The Civil Court denied the petition but did not confirm the award. The Appellate Term found a rational basis for the master arbitrator's determination upholding the interest calculation. It held that the petition to vacate was properly denied. Because CPLR 7511(e) requires confirmation upon denial of a petition to vacate, the order was modified to add a provision confirming the award, and it was otherwise affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of Hudson Med. P.C. v MVAIC (2006 NY Slip Op 52248(U))

[*1]
Hudson Med., P.C., Matter of, v MVAIC
2006 NY Slip Op 52248(U) [13 Misc 3d 140(A)]
Decided on November 9, 2006
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected in part through December 12, 2006; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on November 9, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT:: PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and BELEN, JJ
2005-1807 K C


In the Matter of the Application of Hudson Medical, P.C. ASSIGNEE OF JIMMY RIVERA, Appellant,

against

MVAIC, Respondent.


Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), entered September 27, 2005. The order denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award.


Order 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 which upheld the arbitrator’s calculation of interest (see e.g. Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224 [1982]; 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 note that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment, not an order (see CPLR 411).

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 09, 2006