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

**Short answer: Settled at the Appellate Division, no conflicting department.** The First and Second Departments agree on the rule, and no Court of Appeals decision or Third or Fourth Department decision in the database addresses it. Under 65-4.10 (j) (4) the fee for an article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm a master arbitration award, a de novo action and further appeals is 'fixed by the court' as a reasonable fee, not limited by the 65-4.6 formula or the (j) (2) master-arbitration cap; it requires a valid claim that was denied or overdue and an applicant who prevailed; the amount is in the court's discretion, a hearing is not required where none was requested, but the court must have sufficient information and state the evidentiary basis; time spent on the fee application is not compensable. Earlier contrary rulings were withdrawn or not followed: GEICO v AAAMG (2d Dept 2016, $650 under (j) (2)) was recalled on reargument in 2017, and Country-Wide v Valdan (1st Dept 2017, 20% under 65-4.6 (b)) was declined in Bay Needle (1st Dept 2018). Decisions now differ only in application, mainly on whether a small amount was adequately explained.

Scope: Deciding this question means ruling on the attorney's fee that Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4) allow for work in court after a no-fault master arbitration: a CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm the award (including the applicant's own petition to confirm when the insurer did not pay), an action for a de novo determination under § 5106 (c), and appeals from them. This is the 'additional' fee, on top of the 65-4.6 fee for the arbitration and the 65-4.10 (j) (2) fee for the master arbitration. It covers whether the fee is recoverable at all (the applicant prevailed; a valid claim was denied or overdue; the work falls within (j) (4); the request was timely and supported), whether the amount is controlled by the regulatory schedules (65-4.6 or (j) (2)) or 'fixed by the court' as a reasonable fee, and how the court must fix it (hours and prevailing rate, the usual reasonable-fee factors, whether a hearing is needed, stating the evidentiary basis, no fee for time spent on the fee application). Categories record what the court held on the fee for the court proceeding or appeal.

- Decisions: 76 in the database, the most recent decided 2026-10-22
- Page: https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-topics/attorney-fees/

## Leading authorities

- [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/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2017. Court fixes the article 75 fee and states its evidentiary basis: A CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm a master arbitration award is a 'court appeal' under 65-4.10 (j) (4), so the court has authority to award the additional fee; the denial without stated reasons was reversed and the matter remitted to fix the amount, stating the evidentiary basis, with no fee for time spent applying for the fee.
- [Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. (2018 NY Slip Op 03929)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-country-wide-ins-co-v-bay-needle-care-acupuncture-p-c-2018-ny-slipop-03929/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2018. First Department: reasonable appeal fee; Valdan's 20% formula not followed: The provider that defeated the insurer's article 75 petition is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for the appeal, to be fixed by Supreme Court under 65-4.10 (j) (4); to the extent Country-Wide v Valdan (2017) calculated the fee differently (20% under 65-4.6 (b)), the court declined to follow it.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v SCOB, LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 01352)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-scob-llc-2026-ny-slip-op-01352/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026. Fee not controlled by 65-4.6 (d); basis must be stated: The fee for an article 75 proceeding is not controlled by 65-4.6 (d) but fixed by the court as a reasonable fee on the usual factors; because the court awarded only $1,000 against a $4,600 request without stating a basis, and none was evident from the record, the award was reversed and remitted for a new determination.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Center, LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 06054)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-bay-ridge-surgi-center-llc-2025-ny-slip-op-06054/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025. No hearing needed; small award upheld within discretion: An award of $250 for the article 75 proceeding was within the court's discretion without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and did not request a hearing, given the no-fault law's aim of prompt, inexpensive resolution.
- [Matter of 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 04293)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-563-grand-med-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-04293/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026. No fee without a determined valid, overdue claim: A provider that obtained vacatur of a master arbitration award and remittal to arbitration on standing was not entitled to a (j) (4) fee, because no determination had yet been made that it had a valid claim that was denied or overdue; the $1,950 fee judgment was reversed.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Midland Pharm. Yonkers Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 06193)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-midland-pharm-yonkers-corp-2026-ny-slip-op-06193/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2026. First Department: set reasonable fee, state basis, include appeal: The provider that defeated the insurer's petition was entitled to attorneys' fees; on remand the court must review the evidence, set a reasonable fee and state its evidentiary basis (or fix one in its discretion if the evidence is insufficient), and consider the fees incurred on the appeal.
- Matter of Hempstead Gen. Hosp. v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 179 AD2d 645 (not in the database). Source of the rules that a 'court appeal' includes a CPLR article 75 proceeding on a master arbitration award and that there is no 'fee upon a fee'; relied on in GEICO v AAAMG (2016, 2017) and cited by 5 decisions.
- Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 170 AD3d 1168 (not in the database). Affirmed vacatur of a master arbitrator's determination and remitted for the petitioner's reasonable attorney's fees for the appeal (as described in Comfort Choice 2025); cited for the fee by Comfort Choice, Mather, 563 Grand, Bliss and New York Recovery PT (also widely cited on the error-of-law standard).
- RMP Capital Corp. v Victory Jet, LLC, 139 AD3d 836 (not in the database). General reasonable-fee standard (hours reasonably expended and prevailing rate; trial court's discretion) applied to (j) (4) fees; cited by 16 decisions.
- Lancer Indem. Co. v JKH Realty Group, LLC, 127 AD3d 1035 (not in the database). Attorney bears the burden of proving the reasonable value of the services; quoted in the 2025-2026 Second Department (j) (4) decisions (13 decisions).
- Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Rutland Med. PC, 224 AD3d 531 (not in the database). Fees incurred on the appeal are recoverable under 65-4.10 (j) (4); cited in Midland (2026) and Integrated Specialty (2026). Not in the database.
- Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v Maryland Cas. Co., 90 NY2d 274 (not in the database). A claimant recovers attorney's fees only where a valid claim or portion was denied or overdue; the basis of the no-fee rulings in 563 Grand (2026) and Fast Care (2018).

## Governing regulations

Entitlement comes from Insurance Law § 5106 (a); how the court sets a reasonable fee (hours, prevailing rate, a stated evidentiary basis, no fee for the fee application) comes from the case law.

- [11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (4)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-4-10/#j-4): The attorney's fee for a de novo action under Insurance Law 5106 (c), or for a court appeal from a master arbitration award and any further appeals, is fixed by the court; under the case law an article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm the award is such an appeal.
- [11 NYCRR 65-3.10 (a)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-3-10/#a) [also relevant]: An applicant or assignee recovers attorney's fees only if a valid claim or portion was denied or overdue; under the case law no fee for the court work is due before that has been determined, or where the applicant did not prevail.
- [11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (j) (2)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-4-10/#j-2) [also relevant]: The master arbitration fee: up to $65 an hour for preparatory services, capped at $650, and up to $80 an hour for oral argument; under the case law it does not cap the fee the court fixes for the court proceeding.
- [11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (d)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-4-6/#d) [also relevant]: The 20 percent fee, capped at $1,360 per applicant, for arbitration and court proceedings on disputes other than policy issues; under the case law it does not control the fee the court fixes under 65-4.10 (j) (4).
- [11 NYCRR 65-4.10 (h) (1)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/no-fault-regulations/11-nycrr-65-4-10/#h-1) [also relevant]: The master arbitrator's award is final except for an article 75 proceeding or, at $5,000 or more, a de novo action: the court proceedings whose fee 65-4.10 (j) (4) leaves to the court.

## Categories

- **Fee due; court to fix**: The court holds that the applicant may recover an attorney's fee under 65-4.10 (j) (4) / Insurance Law § 5106 (a) for the article 75 proceeding (to vacate or to confirm), the de novo action, or the appeal, and grants the request, reverses a denial, or remits/remands for the court below to fix a reasonable amount, without itself reviewing an amount already fixed for that work. Includes holdings that a petition to confirm after the insurer failed to pay is a 'court appeal' (Mather 2026; New York Recovery PT 2025), that a provider who defeats the insurer's de novo action earns the fee (Comfort Choice 2025; Bliss 2026), that the amount is 'not controlled by 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (d)' when the fee is remitted for a first determination (YSC Trinity 2026), and the routine 'entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for this appeal' remand.
- **Amount fixed or upheld**: The court fixes or reviews the amount of the fee for the court work as a reasonable fee in its discretion and a specific amount stands: an appellate court holds that the amount fixed below (even far below the amount sought) was a provident exercise of discretion, that no hearing was required where none was requested or no affirmation of services was submitted (Bay Ridge, SCOB, Pfeffer, Nov 2025; Integrated Medicine, YD, Yom, Dec 2025; Stand Up MRI, Baltic, Bay Ridge, Mar 2026), or upholds a fee after a de novo trial (Kapeleris 2025); or a trial court fixes a specific amount on hours, rate and the reasonable-fee factors (e.g. Brooklyn Med. Practice 2025: 1.15 hours at $300; Time to Care 2024: $1,000).
- **Amount set aside**: The court vacates the amount fixed for the court proceeding or appeal and remits for a new determination (or substitutes a different amount) because the court below did not state the basis and none is evident from the record, lacked sufficient information, gave no explanation against evidence that customary fees were higher, or measured the fee by the 65-4.6 formula or cap instead of fixing it under (j) (4). Examples: Country-Wide v TC Acupuncture 2019 (court applied 65-4.6, $749.38 vacated), SCOB, Community Med. Imaging and Barakat (Mar 2026), Pfeffer (Oct 2026), Quick Health (App Term 2025: the $1,360 cap wrongly applied to the article 75 fee).
- **Limited to regulatory schedule**: The court holds or applies that the fee for the article 75 proceeding, de novo action or appeal is measured by a regulatory schedule written for arbitration fees: 20% of the benefits plus interest under 65-4.6 (b), (d) or former (e) with its cap, the $65-per-hour / $650 limit of 65-4.10 (j) (2) (i), or the $70-per-hour rate of 65-4.6 (c). Examples: GEICO v AAAMG (2d Dept 2016: $650 under (j) (2); recalled and vacated on reargument in 2017), Country-Wide v Valdan (1st Dept 2017: 20% under 65-4.6 (b); not followed in Bay Needle 2018), and Kings County Supreme Court decisions of 2023 applying $65 or $70 per hour to an assumed number of hours (e.g. Trinity Pain 2023).
- **No fee recoverable**: The court holds that no (j) (4) fee is recoverable for the work at issue, or upholds its denial, because the applicant did not prevail (award vacated, petition denied, not the prevailing party), no valid claim was determined to be denied or overdue (matter sent back to arbitration; the arbitrator did not reach whether the claims were overdue; the judgment was already satisfied and only enforcement work remained), the proceeding is outside (j) (4) (an appeal in a declaratory judgment action; in some trial courts, a petition to confirm), the request is for fees on fees, or the request was untimely, unsupported by any proof, not made in compliance with a briefing schedule, or not preserved.

## Decisions (76)

Highest court first, then department, newest first. Each entry: court and date, the category, [central] where the result turns on this question or [also decides], then a one-sentence summary written by a language model from the decision and checked by a second reading.

### Appellate Division, First Department

- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Midland Pharm. Yonkers Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 06193)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-midland-pharm-yonkers-corp-2026-ny-slip-op-06193/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-10-22 — Fee due; court to fix [central]: Held the provider entitled to attorneys' fees and remanded for the court to review the evidence, set a reasonable fee stating its basis (or fix one in its discretion if the evidence was insufficient) and consider the appeal fees.
- [Matter of New Millennium Pain & Spine Medicine, P.C. v Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 00599)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-new-millennium-pain-spine-medicine-p-c-v-garrison-prop-cas-ins-co-2024-ny-slip-op-00599/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2024-02-06 — No fee recoverable [also decides]: Held the provider was not the prevailing party and so was not entitled to attorney's fees under 65-4.10 (j) (4).
- [Matter of Lam Quan, MD, PC v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 00174)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-lam-quan-md-pc-v-geico-gen-ins-co-2024-ny-slip-op-00174/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2024-01-16 — No fee recoverable [also decides]: Held the provider, which lost its petition to vacate, was not entitled to attorney's fees under 65-4.10 (j) (4).
- [Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v WJW Med. Prods., Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 06472)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-country-wide-ins-co-v-wjw-med-prods-inc-2023-ny-slip-op-06472/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2023-12-19 — No fee recoverable [also decides]: Held the provider not entitled to attorney's fees for prosecuting this appeal, because a party is not entitled to fees on fees for applying for and substantiating attorney's fees.
- [Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. (2023 NY Slip Op 05094)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-country-wide-ins-co-v-bay-needle-care-acupuncture-p-c-2023-ny-slip-op-05094/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2023-10-10 — No fee recoverable [central]: Upheld the denial of additional fees for opposing the insurer's article 75 petition because the provider moved some five and a half years late without explanation and submitted no proof of the fees incurred.
- [Matter of DTR Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Refill Rx Pharm., Inc. (2023 NY Slip Op 00179)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-dtr-country-wide-ins-co-v-refill-rx-pharm-inc-2023-ny-slipop-00179/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2023-01-17 — No fee recoverable [also decides]: Held the provider was not entitled to (j) (4) attorney's fees because the award in its favor was properly vacated.
- [Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture, P.C. (2021 NY Slip Op 01120)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-country-wide-ins-co-v-tc-acupuncture-p-c-2021-ny-slip-op01120/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2021-02-18 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Held the provider entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees on appeal under 65-4.10 (j) (4) and remanded for Supreme Court to calculate them.
- [Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Avangard Supply, Inc. (2020 NY Slip Op 06855)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-global-liberty-ins-co-of-n-y-v-avangard-supply-inc-2020-ny-slip-op06855/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2020-11-19 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Held the providers entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j) (4), to be determined by Supreme Court on remand.
- [Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture P.C. (2020 NY Slip Op 00048)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-country-wide-ins-co-v-tc-acupuncture-p-c-2020-ny-slip-op00048/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2020-01-02 — Fee due; court to fix [central]: Held that an article 75 proceeding to vacate or confirm is a 'court appeal' under 65-4.10 (j) (4), so the prevailing provider was entitled to additional court-fixed fees for that proceeding and the appeal, which Supreme Court erred in failing to award.
- [Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC (2019 NY Slip Op 08951)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-global-liberty-ins-co-of-n-y-v-north-shore-family-chiropractic-pc-2019ny-slip-op-08951/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2019-12-12 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Held the court had authority to award 65-4.10 (j) (4) fees for the court appeal from the master award and, because it failed to address the request, remanded to fix the amount, including fees for the appeal.
- [Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Evans (2019 NY Slip Op 07716)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/global-liberty-ins-co-v-evans-2019-ny-slip-op-07716/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2019-10-29 — No fee recoverable [also decides]: Held the provider not entitled to attorney's fees for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j) (4) because the appeal arose from a declaratory judgment action, not from an arbitration.
- [Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture P.C. (2019 NY Slip Op 04087)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-country-wide-ins-co-v-tc-acupuncture-p-c-2019-ny-slip-op04087/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2019-05-28 — Amount set aside [central]: Vacated a $749.38 fee computed as 20% of the arbitration demand under 65-4.6 and remanded for a reasonable fee under 65-4.10 (j) (4), which governs court review of a master arbitration award.
- [Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Acupuncture, P.C. (2018 NY Slip Op 08238)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-country-wide-ins-co-v-bay-needle-acupuncture-p-c-2018-ny-slip-op08238/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2018-12-04 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Held the provider entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j) (4) and remanded for Supreme Court to determine them.
- [Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. (2018 NY Slip Op 03929)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-country-wide-ins-co-v-bay-needle-care-acupuncture-p-c-2018-ny-slipop-03929/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2018-06-05 — Fee due; court to fix [central]: Held the provider entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for the appeal, fixed by the court under 65-4.10 (j) (4), and declined to follow the 20% 65-4.6 calculation of an earlier decision.
- [Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Valdan Acupuncture, P.C. (2017 NY Slip Op 04068)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/country-wide-ins-co-v-valdan-acupuncture-p-c-2017-ny-slip-op04068/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2017-05-23 — Limited to regulatory schedule [also decides]: Held the provider entitled to attorneys' fees for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j) (4), calculated under 65-4.6 (b) as 20% of the no-fault benefits awarded.
- [Matter of Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. Kemper A. Unitrin Bus. v Professional Health Radiology (2016 NY Slip Op 06767)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-unitrin-advantage-ins-co-kemper-a-unitrin-bus-v-professionalhealth-radiology-2016-ny-slip-op-06767/) — Appellate Division, First Department, 2016-10-13 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Granted the provider's counterclaim for attorney's fees for the Supreme Court proceeding, fixed by the court under 65-4.10 (j) (4), and remanded to determine them; no relief on the companion matter without a cross appeal.

### Appellate Division, Second Department

- [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/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-10-21 — Amount set aside [central]: Vacated a $1,000 fee for the article 75 proceeding, against a $4,300 request supported by an affirmation, because the court gave no basis and none was evident from the record, and remitted for a new determination stating the evidentiary basis.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bliss Acupuncture, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 06081)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-bliss-acupuncture-p-c-2026-ny-slip-op-06081/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-10-21 — Fee due; court to fix [central]: Held that the provider was entitled to (j) (4) attorney's fees for the de novo action, the request to confirm and the appeal, and remitted for the amount to be fixed.
- [Matter of 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 04291)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-563-grand-med-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-04291/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-07-08 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Held the provider entitled to additional attorneys' fees under 65-4.10 (j) (4) for the appeal and remitted for the court below to determine the appropriate amount.
- [Matter of 563 Grand Med., P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 04293)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-563-grand-med-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-04293/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-07-08 — No fee recoverable [central]: Reversed a $1,950 fee judgment because, having only obtained vacatur and remittal to arbitration on standing, the provider had no determination yet that it held a valid claim that was denied or overdue.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Beach Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 03771)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-beach-med-rehabilitation-p-c-2026-ny-slip-op-03771/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-06-17 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Held the provider that won summary judgment dismissing the insurer's de novo action entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and remitted for the court to determine the amount.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Sovereign Med. Servs., P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 03160)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-sovereign-med-servs-p-c-2026-ny-slip-op-03160/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-05-20 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: After confirming the award for the provider, remitted the cross-petition's request for reasonable (j) (4) attorney's fees and other fees to the lower court for determination.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Suh (2026 NY Slip Op 03161)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-suh-2026-ny-slip-op-03161/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-05-20 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: After confirming the award for the provider, remitted the cross-petition's request for reasonable (j) (4) attorney's fees and other fees to the lower court for determination.
- [Matter of Integrated Specialty ASC, LLC v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 02651)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-integrated-specialty-asc-llc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-02651/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-04-29 — Fee due; court to fix [central]: Held the provider entitled to additional fees for its petition to confirm, a 'court appeal', and remitted to fix the amount because the judgment omitted them without apparent basis despite the submitted fee affirmation.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Citimed Surgery Ctr., LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 02645)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-citimed-surgery-ctr-llc-2026-ny-slip-op-02645/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-04-29 — No fee recoverable [central]: Upheld the denial of additional fees because the provider's motion with supporting affirmation was filed beyond the court-ordered 30-day period without any explanation for the delay.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Smart Choice Med., P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 02646)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-smart-choice-med-p-c-2026-ny-slip-op-02646/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-04-29 — No fee recoverable [central]: Upheld the denial of additional fees because the provider filed its fee affirmation after the court-ordered briefing schedule and offered no reasonable justification for renewal based on information already available to it.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Ctr., LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 02644)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-bay-ridge-surgi-ctr-llc-2026-ny-slip-op-02644/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-04-29 — No fee recoverable [central]: Upheld the refusal of a (j) (4) fee because the provider raised the request for the first time on reargument, made no timely application before the petition was decided, and submitted no documentation of the fees incurred.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Barakat PT PC (2026 NY Slip Op 01750)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-barakat-pt-pc-2026-ny-slip-op-01750/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25 — Amount set aside [central]: Vacated a $1,300 fee for defending the insurer's de novo action and remitted for a new determination stating its evidentiary basis, because the parties' evidence conflicted and the court gave no explanation evident from the record.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Allied Bd. Certified Physicians (2026 NY Slip Op 01782)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-allied-bd-certified-physicians-2026-ny-slip-op-01782/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25 — Fee due; court to fix [central]: Reversed the denial of the provider's (j) (4) fee request and remitted to determine whether, and in what amount, reasonable fees are due, because the insurer's 65-4.6 (h) objection was raised for the first time on appeal and not preserved.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Patient Care Assoc. (2026 NY Slip Op 01783)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-patient-care-assoc-2026-ny-slip-op-01783/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25 — Fee due; court to fix [central]: Reversed the denial of the provider's (j) (4) fee request and remitted to fix reasonable fees, if any, because the insurer's 65-4.6 (h) fee-schedule objection was raised for the first time on appeal and not properly before the court.
- [Matter of John T. Mather Mem. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 01788)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-john-t-mather-mem-hosp-v-american-tr-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-01788/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25 — Fee due; court to fix [central]: Held that a proceeding to confirm a master arbitration award is a 'court appeal' under 65-4.10 (j) (4), so the provider was entitled to reasonable fees, and remitted for the amount to be fixed.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Community Med. Imaging, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 01351)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-community-med-imaging-p-c-2026-ny-slip-op-01351/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-11 — Amount set aside [central]: Vacated a $750 fee against a $2,200 request and remitted for a new determination stating its basis, because the court gave no explanation and the insurer's own evidence suggested customary fees were higher.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v YSC Trinity Acupuncture, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 01354)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-ysc-trinity-acupuncture-p-c-2026-ny-slip-op-01354/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-11 — Fee due; court to fix [central]: Reversed the denial of a fee because the provider prevailed in the article 75 proceeding, held the amount not controlled by 65-4.6 (d), and remitted for the court to fix a reasonable fee stating its basis.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v SCOB, LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 01352)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-scob-llc-2026-ny-slip-op-01352/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-11 — Amount set aside [central]: Vacated a $1,000 fee awarded against a $4,600 request and remitted for a new determination stating its evidentiary basis, because the court gave no basis and none was evident; the fee is not controlled by 65-4.6 (d).
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Ctr., LLC (2026 NY Slip Op 01350)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-bay-ridge-surgi-ctr-llc-2026-ny-slip-op-01350/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-11 — Amount fixed or upheld [central]: Upheld a $280 fee for the article 75 proceeding fixed without a hearing because the provider submitted no affirmation of the work performed and time expended and did not request a hearing.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Baltic Supply Corp. (2026 NY Slip Op 01349)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-baltic-supply-corp-2026-ny-slip-op-01349/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-11 — Amount fixed or upheld [central]: Upheld a $300 fee for the article 75 proceeding fixed without a hearing because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and never requested a hearing.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Stand Up MRI of Manhattan (2026 NY Slip Op 01353)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-stand-up-mri-of-manhattan-2026-ny-slip-op-01353/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-11 — Amount fixed or upheld [central]: Upheld a $300 fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and did not request a hearing.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v MTS Acupuncture, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 01053)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-mts-acupuncture-p-c-2026-ny-slip-op-01053/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-02-25 — No fee recoverable [central]: Held the provider not entitled to an additional (j)(4) fee for post-judgment subpoena and motion practice, because the judgment had been satisfied and no claim for benefits remained overdue; denial was on the merits, not academic.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lenox Hill Hosp. (NSUH) (2026 NY Slip Op 01052)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-lenox-hill-hosp-nsuh-2026-ny-slip-op-01052/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-02-25 — Fee due; court to fix [central]: Held the hospital entitled to additional (j) (4) fees for work securing overdue postjudgment interest, but not for the harassing information subpoena or the appeal, and remitted to fix the amount.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v YSC Trinity Acupuncture, P.C. (2026 NY Slip Op 01054)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-ysc-trinity-acupuncture-p-c-2026-ny-slip-op-01054/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-02-25 — No fee recoverable [also decides]: Upheld denial of an additional (j)(4) fee for post-judgment subpoena and motion practice, because the judgment had been paid and no claim or portion of a claim for benefits was overdue.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Atlantic Med. Care, P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 07297)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-atlantic-med-care-p-c-2025-ny-slip-op-07297/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-12-24 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Held the provider entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees under 65-4.10 (j) (4) and remitted to Supreme Court to determine the amount.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Integrated Medicine of S.I., P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 06703)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-integrated-medicine-of-s-i-p-c-2025-ny-slip-op-06703/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-12-03 — Amount fixed or upheld [central]: Upheld a $220 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and did not request a hearing.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v YD Med. Servs., P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 06704)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-yd-med-servs-p-c-2025-ny-slip-op-06704/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-12-03 — Amount fixed or upheld [central]: Upheld a $220 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and did not request a hearing.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Jong Won Yom (2025 NY Slip Op 06705)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-jong-won-yom-2025-ny-slip-op-06705/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-12-03 — Amount fixed or upheld [central]: Upheld a $220 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and did not request a hearing.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Jong Won Yom (2025 NY Slip Op 06706)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-jong-won-yom-2025-ny-slip-op-06706/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-12-03 — Amount fixed or upheld [central]: Upheld a $600 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and did not request a hearing.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Center, LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 06054)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-bay-ridge-surgi-center-llc-2025-ny-slip-op-06054/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-11-05 — Amount fixed or upheld [central]: Upheld a $250 (j) (4) fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing its work and time and requested no hearing.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Bay Ridge Surgi-Center, LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 06055)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-bay-ridge-surgi-center-llc-2025-ny-slip-op-06055/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-11-05 — Amount fixed or upheld [central]: Upheld a $1,100 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding despite a $4,450 affirmation, because no hearing was requested and the court properly weighed the prevailing rate and the matter's complexity.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Pfeffer (2025 NY Slip Op 06056)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-pfeffer-2025-ny-slip-op-06056/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-11-05 — Amount fixed or upheld [central]: Upheld a $500 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding without a hearing, because the provider submitted no affirmation describing the work and time spent and never requested a hearing.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Scob, LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 06057)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-scob-llc-2025-ny-slip-op-06057/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-11-05 — Amount fixed or upheld [central]: Upheld a $1,100 additional fee for the article 75 proceeding despite a $4,550 affirmation, because no hearing was requested and the court properly considered the prevailing rate and the matter's complexity.
- [Matter of Lam Quan MD, P.C. v LM Gen. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 03328)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-lam-quan-md-p-c-v-lm-gen-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-03328/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-06-04 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Held the petitioner entitled to additional attorneys' fees for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j) and remitted for the court below to fix the amount, alongside an arbitration-level 65-4.6 (d) fee.
- [Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Comfort Choice Chiropractic, P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 01363)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-american-tr-ins-co-v-comfort-choice-chiropractic-p-c-2025-ny-slip-op-01363/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-03-12 — Fee due; court to fix [central]: Held that the provider which defeated the insurer's article 75 petition to vacate should have been granted a fee under 65-4.10 (j) (4), reversed the denial, and remitted to fix a reasonable amount.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Comfort Choice Chiropractic, P.C. (2025 NY Slip Op 01337)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-comfort-choice-chiropractic-p-c-2025-ny-slip-op-01337/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-03-12 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Held that the provider which obtained dismissal of the insurer's de novo action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was entitled to a fee under 65-4.10 (j) (4), and remitted for a determination of a reasonable amount.
- [Allstate Ins. Co. v Kapeleris (2025 NY Slip Op 00839)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/allstate-ins-co-v-kapeleris-2025-ny-slip-op-00839/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-02-13 — Amount fixed or upheld [central]: Upheld a $76,856.67 attorney's fee awarded after a nonjury trial in the insurer's de novo action as a provident exercise of discretion under 5106 (a) and 65-4.10 (j) (4).
- [Matter of V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07265)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-v-s-care-acupuncture-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op07265/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2019-10-09 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Held, as conceded, that the provider was entitled to an attorney's fee for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j), and remitted to Supreme Court to fix the amount.
- [Matter of Bay Needle Care Acupuncture v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07249)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-bay-needle-care-acupuncture-v-country-wide-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op07249/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2019-10-09 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Held, as conceded, that the provider was entitled to an attorney's fee for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j), and remitted to Supreme Court to fix it.
- [Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07245)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-acuhealth-acupuncture-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2019-ny-slip-op07245/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2019-10-09 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Held, as conceded, that the provider was entitled to an attorney's fee for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j), and remitted to Supreme Court to fix the amount.
- [Matter of Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 07061)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-bay-needle-care-acupuncture-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2019-ny-slipop-07061/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2019-10-02 — No fee recoverable [also decides]: Held the provider not entitled to an attorney's fee for the appeal because the master arbitrator made no finding that the claims were overdue.
- [Matter of Fast Care Med. Diagnostics, PLLC/PV v Government Empls. Ins. Co. (2018 NY Slip Op 03831)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-fast-care-med-diagnostics-pllc-pv-v-government-empls-ins-co-2018ny-slip-op-03831/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2018-05-30 — No fee recoverable [also decides]: Upheld the denial of attorney's fees to the provider because the arbitrator had not reached whether the claims were overdue, and the matter was sent back for further arbitration.
- [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/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2017-03-01 — Fee due; court to fix [central]: 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.
- [Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v AAAMG Leasing Corp. (2016 NY Slip Op 03879)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-geico-ins-co-v-aaamg-leasing-corp-2016-ny-slip-op03879/) — Appellate Division, Second Department, 2016-05-18 — Limited to regulatory schedule [central]: Reversed the denial of the additional fee for the article 75 proceeding but limited it to $650, applying the master-arbitration cap of 65-4.10 (j) (2) (i) because no oral argument fee was sought and no novel issue found.

### Appellate Term, Second Department

- [New York Recovery PT, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 25166)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/new-york-recovery-pt-p-c-v-american-tr-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-25166/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2025-07-17 — Fee due; court to fix [central]: Reversed the denial of fees, holding that a petition to confirm a master award the insurer failed to pay timely is a 'court appeal' under 65-4.10 (j) (4), and remitted to fix fees for the proceeding and appeal.
- [Quick Health Pharm. Corp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 25038)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/quick-health-pharm-corp-v-american-tr-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-25038/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2025-02-13 — Amount set aside [central]: Held that the court below had wrongly applied the $1,360 cap of 65-4.6 (d) to the article 75 fee, so the effective $933.27 award was set aside and remitted to fix a reasonable (j) (4) fee without any regulatory cap.
- [Matter of Metro Pain Specialist P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. (2020 NY Slip Op 50014(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-metro-pain-specialist-p-c-v-country-wide-ins-co-2020-ny-slip-op50014u/) — Appellate Term, Second Department, 2020-01-02 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Held the provider entitled to reasonable attorney's fees for the appeal under 65-4.10 (j) (4) and remitted to the District Court to determine the amount.

### Trial courts in the First Department

- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Brooklyn Med. Practice, PC (2025 NY Slip Op 50897(U) (86 Misc 3d 1208(A)))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-brooklyn-med-practice-pc-2025-ny-slip-op-50897u-86-misc-3d-1208a/) — Supreme Court, New York County, 2025-05-22 — Amount fixed or upheld [also decides]: Rejected the insurer's argument that 65-4.6 (d) caps the article 75 fee. It awarded $345 (1.15 hours at $300) instead of the $850 sought because the affirmation gave little support and included fee-application time.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Mark S. McMahon MD, P.C. (2022 NY Slip Op 50716(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-mark-s-mcmahon-md-p-c-2022-ny-slip-op50716u/) — Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, 2022-08-05 — Amount fixed or upheld [also decides]: Awarded $1,000 for 2.5 hours at $400 an hour spent opposing the petition, finding time and rate reasonable and rejecting the insurer's argument that the master-arbitration $65-per-hour cap limited the article 75 fee.

### Trial courts in the Second Department

- [ENS Med., P.C. v Nationwide Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 26033)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/ens-med-p-c-v-nationwide-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-26033/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2026-02-13 — No fee recoverable [also decides]: Denied the provider's request for attorney's fees for the article 75 proceeding because it was not the prevailing party, adding that fees would not attach to EUO lost-earnings reimbursement, which is not a first-party benefit.
- [Time to Care Pharm. Inc. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 50126(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/time-to-care-pharm-inc-v-american-tr-ins-co-2024-ny-slip-op-50126u/) — District Court of Suffolk County, Second District, 2024-01-17 — Amount fixed or upheld [also decides]: Granted the unopposed request for additional attorney's fees for the post-arbitration proceeding under 65-4.10 (j) (4), fixing them at $1,000.
- [John T. Mather Mem. Hosp. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 24009)](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/john-t-mather-mem-hosp-v-american-tr-ins-co-2024-ny-slip-op-24009/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024-01-12 — No fee recoverable [central]: Denied any (j) (4) fee because an unopposed petition to confirm a favorable master award is neither a 'court appeal' nor a de novo action; the provider's remedy for nonpayment was the $60 fee of 65-3.10 (b).
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Trinity Pain Mgt. of Staten Is., PLLC (2023 NY Slip Op 51337(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-trinity-pain-mgt-of-staten-is-pllc-2023-ny-slip-op-51337u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-12-08 — Limited to regulatory schedule [also decides]: Fixed the (j)(4) fee for the article 75 proceeding at $325 by applying the 65-4.10 (j) (2) $65 hourly rate to an assumed five hours, absent evidence of the work performed.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging P.C. (2023 NY Slip Op 51311(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-nexray-med-imaging-p-c-2023-ny-slip-op51311u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-12-01 — Limited to regulatory schedule [central]: Adhered to a $195 article 75 fee, computed by applying the master-arbitration rate of $65 per hour to a presumed three hours, rejecting the $3,300 sought as excessive for boilerplate volume work and lacking credible evidence.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50953(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-nexray-med-imaging-pc-2023-ny-slip-op50953u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-09-08 — Amount fixed or upheld [also decides]: Fixed a nominal $100 fee for the article 75 proceeding on the reasonable-fee factors, because counsel gave no proof of time spent or experience, the issues were simple, and counsel's work did not produce the result.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Rutland Med., PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50814(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-rutland-med-pc-2023-ny-slip-op50814u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-08-04 — Amount fixed or upheld [also decides]: Awarded the prevailing provider $375 for the article 75 proceeding, raising the $70 policy-issue hourly rate to $125 for an assumed two hours plus a $125 appearance, because counsel submitted only boilerplate papers without an affirmation of the work.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging PC (2023 NY Slip Op50538(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-nexray-med-imaging-pc-2023-ny-slip-op50538u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-05-28 — Limited to regulatory schedule [also decides]: Held the prevailing provider entitled to a (j) (4) fee but, with no affirmation of services, fixed it at $220 by applying the 65-4.6 (c) $70 hourly rate to an assumed two hours plus an $80 appearance fee.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v Nexray Med. Imaging PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50506(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-nexray-med-imaging-pc-2023-ny-slip-op50506u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-05-25 — Limited to regulatory schedule [also decides]: Held the prevailing provider entitled to a (j)(4) fee but, absent an affirmation of services, fixed it at $140 by applying the 65-4.6 (c) $70 hourly policy-issue rate to an assumed two hours.
- [American Tr. Ins. Co. v North Shore Family Chiropractic PC (2023 NY Slip Op 50208(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/american-tr-ins-co-v-north-shore-family-chiropractic-pc-2023-ny-slipop-50208u/) — Supreme Court, Kings County, 2023-03-20 — Limited to regulatory schedule [also decides]: Held the prevailing provider entitled to a 65-4.10 (j) (4) fee but, finding $550 an hour excessive for boilerplate papers, awarded $210 by applying the $70-per-hour policy-issue rate of 65-4.6 (c) to three hours.
- [Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Physical Medicine & Rehab of NY (2011 NY Slip Op 50848(U))](https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/motor-veh-acc-indem-corp-v-physical-medicine-rehab-of-ny-2011-ny-slip-op-50848u/) — Supreme Court, Queens County, 2011-05-13 — Fee due; court to fix [also decides]: Granted the provider, which defeated the de novo action on summary judgment, its request for reasonable attorneys' fees upon submission of appropriate proof, leaving the amount to be fixed later.