August 17, 2017

Essential Health Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51079(U))

Headnote

The court considered the appeal of a master arbitrator's award, which upheld the denial of the petitioner's claims to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The main issue decided was whether the master arbitrator's determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to settled law. The court found that the master arbitrator's decision was based on a rational basis and not contrary to settled law, so the District Court properly denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award and granted the cross-petition to confirm the award. Therefore, the holding of the case was that the order to affirm the denial of the petition and grant the cross-petition to confirm the award was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Essential Health Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51079(U))

Essential Health Chiropractic, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co. (2017 NY Slip Op 51079(U)) [*1]

Essential Health Chiropractic, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 51079(U) [56 Misc 3d 139(A)]

Decided on August 17, 2017

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 August 17, 2017

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : ANTHONY MARANO, P.J., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, JERRY GARGUILO, JJ
2016-559 S C

Essential Health Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Luis Gomez, Appellant,
against
GEICO Insurance Company, Respondent.

The Law Office of Gregory A. Goodman, P.C. (Gregory A. Goodman, Esq.), for appellant. Short & Billy, P.C. (Skip Short, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (James F. Matthews, J.), dated January 26, 2016. The order, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator’s award dated July 17, 2015 in which GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator’s award, denied the petition and granted the cross petition.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate a master arbitrator’s award, dated July 17, 2015 which upheld the award of an arbitrator, rendered pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (b), denying petitioner’s claims to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. GEICO Insurance Company cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator’s award. The District Court denied the petition and granted the cross petition.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the determination of the master arbitrator had a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to settled law (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214 [1996]; Matter of Petrofsky [*2][Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207 [1981]; Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 AD2d 442 [1980]). Consequently, the District Court properly denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award and granted the cross petition to confirm the award.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

We note that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment, not an order (see CPLR 411).

MARANO, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: August 17, 2017