November 15, 2006

RJ Professional Acupuncturist P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52255(U))

Headnote

The relevant facts considered by the court were that the master arbitrator had upheld the arbitrator's award, which had denied the petitioner's claims for no-fault benefits. The main issue decided by the court was whether there was a rational basis for the determination of the master arbitrator in upholding the arbitrator's award. The court's holding was that there was a rational basis for the master arbitrator's determination, and, therefore, the court properly denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award. The court also noted that, pursuant to CPLR 7511(e), upon denying the petition, the court was required to confirm the award. The decision was rendered on November 15, 2006.

Reported in New York Official Reports at RJ Professional Acupuncturist P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52255(U))

RJ Professional Acupuncturist P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 52255(U)) [*1]

RJ Professional Acupuncturist P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

2006 NY Slip Op 52255(U) [13 Misc 3d 140(A)]

Decided on November 15, 2006

Appellate Term, Second Department

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

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 15, 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
2005-1032 K C.

RJ Professional Acupuncturist P.C. a/a/o LOUIS RODRIGUEZ, Appellant,
against
Geico Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ellen Spodek, J.), entered March 31, 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 upholding the arbitrator’s award which denied the petitioner’s claims for no-fault benefits (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. [*2]
Decision Date: November 15, 2006