Appellate Division, Second Department
Mar 25, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01788
Provider prevailed
A proceeding to confirm a master arbitration award is a court appeal entitling the provider to reasonable attorney's fees. The provider petitioned under CPLR article 75 to confirm its award and sought fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4). Although the insurer did not oppose the petition, Supreme Court confirmed the award but denied fees. The regulation requires the adjudicating court to fix fees for services in a court appeal from a master arbitration award, including proceedings to vacate or confirm. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment insofar as it denied fees, granted that branch of the petition, and remitted for determination of the reasonable amount and an amended judgment.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Mar 25, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01783
Provider prevailed
A master arbitration award must be confirmed when the court denies a petition to vacate it. Supreme Court denied the insurer's vacatur petition but also denied the provider's requests for confirmation and attorney fees. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, confirmed the award under CPLR 7511 (e), and remitted to determine whether, and in what amount, reasonable fees should be awarded under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4). The insurer's contention that excessive billing barred fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (h) was improperly raised first on appeal. It was not solely a legal issue, and the provider had no opportunity to refute it; fee entitlement remained for determination on remittal.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Mar 25, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01782
Provider prevailed
A master arbitration award must be confirmed when the court denies a petition to vacate it. Supreme Court denied the insurer's vacatur petition but also denied the provider's requests for confirmation and attorney fees. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment, insofar as appealed from, confirmed the award under CPLR 7511 (e), and remitted to determine whether, and in what amount, reasonable fees should be awarded under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4). The insurer's contention that excessive billing barred fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (h) was improperly raised first on appeal. It was not solely a legal issue, and the provider had no opportunity to refute it; fee entitlement remained for determination on remittal.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Mar 25, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01751
Provider prevailed
The insurer failed to justify renewal or show grounds for reargument of the order striking its complaint for discovery noncompliance. In the insurer's de novo action under Insurance Law § 5106 (c), the Supreme Court, Kings County, granted renewal and reargument and vacated the order striking the complaint under CPLR 3126 (3). The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed, denied the insurer's motion, and reinstated the striking order. Under CPLR 2221 (d) (2), no misapprehension of fact or law was shown, and the insurer improperly raised its notice-of-entry argument for the first time on reargument. Under CPLR 2221 (e) (2) and (3), the insurer offered no reasonable justification for failing to submit the purported new facts in its original opposition.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Mar 25, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01750
Provider prevailed
The provider's attorney fee award was reversed because its basis was unexplained and the record contained conflicting evidence. After a master arbitrator upheld an award of no-fault benefits, the insurer sought de novo review under Insurance Law § 5106 (c); its complaint was struck for failure to comply with a conditional discovery order. Under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), the court fixes reasonable fees and must have sufficient information to assess the services rendered. The parties disputed customary fees and reasonable defense time. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and remitted for a new fee determination stating its evidentiary basis; the provider's remaining contention was not reached.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Mar 11, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01354
Provider prevailed
A provider prevailing in an article 75 proceeding to confirm a master arbitration award is entitled to a reasonable attorney fee. Supreme Court denied the insurer's vacatur petition and confirmed the award, but its judgment omitted a fee despite an earlier determination authorizing one upon submission of an affirmation of services. The provider submitted that affirmation. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment, insofar as appealed from, granted the fee branch of the cross-petition, and remitted to fix the amount with an evidentiary basis. Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4) govern; the amount is court-fixed and is not controlled by 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (d). Remaining contentions were not reached or lacked merit.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Mar 11, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01351
Provider prevailed
The provider's attorney fee award was reversed because neither the order nor the record explained its amount. After confirmation of a master arbitration award, the provider sought $2,200 for article 75 services, and Supreme Court awarded $750. The parties submitted conflicting evidence concerning customary fees and reasonable time, with the insurer's evidence suggesting fees higher than the award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order, insofar as appealed from, and remitted for a new determination stating the evidentiary basis. Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4) authorize court-fixed fees for these services; 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (d) does not control. Remaining contentions were not reached or were not properly before the court.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Mar 11, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01352
Provider prevailed
An attorney fee award for an article 75 proceeding requires an evidentiary basis apparent from the determination or record. After confirming a master arbitration award, Supreme Court awarded the provider $1,000 despite counsel's request for $4,600. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment, insofar as appealed from, and remitted for a new fee determination stating its evidentiary basis. Under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), the court fixes the fee; 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (d) does not control. The court need not accept counsel's valuation and may rely on its familiarity with the litigation, but neither the judgment nor the record explained this award. Remaining contentions were not reached or were improperly raised first in reply.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Mar 11, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01350
Insurer prevailed
The provider's $280 attorney fee award was affirmed because it supplied no description of counsel's work or time and requested no hearing. Supreme Court denied the insurer's CPLR article 75 petition and confirmed the master arbitration award favoring the provider. The provider appealed only the fee amount. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, insofar as appealed from. Under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), the court fixes a reasonable fee for article 75 proceedings, and counsel must establish its value. Without an affirmation or affidavit describing the services and hours, or a hearing request, Supreme Court acted within its discretion in fixing the fee without a hearing; the provider's remaining contention was academic.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Mar 11, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01332
Insurer prevailed
The provider's contradictory and conclusory allegations of law office failure did not reasonably excuse its default in answering. After an arbitration award was affirmed by a master arbitrator, the insurer sought de novo adjudication under Insurance Law § 5106 (c) and obtained a default judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the provider's motion to vacate under CPLR 5015 (a) (1) and compel acceptance of a late answer under CPLR 3012 (d). Both a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense were required; absent an excuse, the defense's merits were not reached. The appeal was not shown to be untimely under CPLR 5513 (a), because the record lacked proof of service of the order with notice of entry.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Mar 11, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01349
Insurer prevailed
The provider's $300 attorney fee award was affirmed because it supplied no description of counsel's work or time and requested no hearing. Supreme Court denied the insurer's CPLR article 75 petition and confirmed the master arbitration award favoring the provider. The provider appealed only the amount awarded for services in that proceeding. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, insofar as appealed from. Under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), the court fixes a reasonable fee for article 75 proceedings, and counsel bears the burden of establishing its value. Without a supporting affirmation or affidavit describing the services and hours, or a hearing request, Supreme Court acted within its discretion in fixing the fee without a hearing.
Appellate Division, Second Department
Mar 11, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 01353
Insurer prevailed
The provider's $300 attorney fee award was affirmed because it supplied no description of counsel's work or time and requested no hearing. Supreme Court denied the insurer's CPLR article 75 petition and confirmed the master arbitration award favoring the provider. The provider appealed only the amount awarded for services in that proceeding. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, insofar as appealed from. Under Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4), the court fixes a reasonable fee for article 75 proceedings, and counsel bears the burden of establishing its value. Without a supporting affirmation or affidavit describing the services and hours, or a hearing request, Supreme Court acted within its discretion in fixing the fee without a hearing.
Trial court, Second Department
Mar 26, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50401(U)
Provider prevailed
A staged-collision defense does not excuse CPLR 7503 (c)'s 20-day deadline to seek a stay of uninsured motorist arbitration. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the insurer's petition for a permanent or temporary stay and dismissed the proceeding. Following Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Rosado, alleged intentional conduct concerned conditions of coverage, not the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. The untimely filing also barred court-directed discovery. Independently, hearsay and unauthenticated materials failed to establish sufficient evidentiary facts for a framed-issue hearing. An incorrect policy number did not justify a stay because the insurer was not misled and no evidence linked the error to its delay.
Trial court, Second Department
Mar 25, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50400(U)
Provider prevailed
The insurer's staged-accident defense presented credibility issues concerning whether a third occupant was in the vehicle. The Civil Court, Richmond County, denied the insurer's CPLR 3212 motion for summary judgment dismissing the provider's assigned no-fault claim. The other driver testified at an EUO that only two people occupied the insured vehicle, while its driver, the assignor and the disputed passenger consistently testified that three were present. Under Vega v Restani Construction Corp., summary judgment does not permit credibility determinations. Although other portions of the occupants' testimony were inconsistent, those inconsistencies did not establish the disputed passenger's absence or demonstrate a staged collision as a matter of law.
Trial court, Second Department
Mar 23, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50433(U)
Provider prevailed
An insurer first receiving a no-fault claim cannot toll payment by requesting a declaration addressing only other insurance. The Civil Court, Kings County, denied the insurer's summary judgment motion and granted the provider's cross motion on the claims at issue. A declaration of no other insurance concerned payment priority, not verification material to processing the claims, so the requests did not toll the 30-day period or render suit premature. Interinsurer disputes required arbitration under Insurance Law § 5105 (b), 11 NYCRR 65-3.12 (b) (1) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.11 (a) (6). The insurer's fee schedule defense was untimely; the court rejected an interpretation of 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (g) (1) (ii) making that defense nonprecludable. Amendment of the insurer's name in the caption was granted.
Trial court, Second Department
Mar 17, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50343(U)
Insurer prevailed
A declaratory judgment barring the provider's claims supported a directed verdict despite its inapplicability to the assignor. Following a stipulation to both parties' prima facie cases, the insurer offered a staged-accident declaratory judgment barring reimbursement to the provider for the relevant incident and policy. The Civil Court, Kings County, granted a directed verdict on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds and dismissed the action with prejudice. Although the declaratory judgment did not apply to the assignor, the assignor was a nonparty to this action. The court denied the provider's request for judgment in the assignor's individual favor and identified a potential conflict preventing provider's counsel from representing the assignor's interests.
Trial court, Second Department
Mar 17, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50340(U)
Insurer prevailed
A declaratory judgment barring the provider's claims supported a directed verdict, although it did not apply to the assignor. After the parties stipulated to their prima facie cases, the insurer offered a staged-accident declaratory judgment barring reimbursement to the provider. The Civil Court, Kings County, granted a directed verdict under res judicata and collateral estoppel and dismissed the action with prejudice. An address inconsistency prevented application of the declaratory judgment to the assignor; counsel's unsworn statement did not establish the address. The court nevertheless denied the provider's request for judgment in the assignor's individual favor because the assignor was a nonparty, and it identified a potential conflict preventing provider's counsel from representing the assignor.
Trial court, Second Department
Mar 13, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50312(U)
Insurer prevailed
The injured claimant failed to establish timely reporting of a hit-and-run accident or an excuse for reporting it 12 days later. On a renewed motion for leave to sue MVAIC under Insurance Law § 5218, the claimant submitted an MV-104 report, efforts to locate surveillance footage, and an affirmation describing the claimant's condition after the accident. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the motion and dismissed the proceeding. Insurance Law § 5208 (a) (2) required reporting within 24 hours unless reporting was not reasonably possible or occurred as soon as reasonably possible. The claimant's submissions did not establish an excuse. MVAIC's acknowledgment of qualified-person status concerned only no-fault benefits, not non-economic loss. No triable factual issue required an evidentiary hearing under CPLR 410.
Trial court, Second Department
Mar 5, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 50986(U)
Insurer prevailed
The insurer obtained dismissal because it had not transacted business or contracted to supply services or insurance coverage in New York. The Civil Court, Kings County, granted dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a) (1). The insurer's affidavit established the absence of relevant New York activities; the provider's speculation about policy language and corporate control supplied no jurisdictional basis or sufficient start warranting discovery. Although the insurer failed to rebut prima facie proof of service under CPLR 311 (a) (1), long-arm jurisdiction remained lacking. The court vacated the prior default judgment as a nullity, denied the provider's default and cross motions as moot, and did not reach the remaining arguments.
