March 17, 2016

Encompass Ins. Co. v Rockaway Family Med. Care, P.C. (2016 NY Slip Op 01921)

Headnote

The court in this case considered a motion for de novo review of a master arbitrator's findings and summary judgment by the plaintiff. The main issue decided was whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for a de novo adjudication of the dispute under Insurance Law §5106 (c). The holding of the court was that the plaintiff was entitled to a de novo review of the arbitrator's findings and an extension of time to send its second follow-up request for an examination under oath, based on General Construction Law §25-a. The court modified the lower court's decision to reinstate the complaint and grant the part of the motion seeking de novo review of the arbitrator's findings and affirmed the decision without costs.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Encompass Ins. Co. v Rockaway Family Med. Care, P.C. (2016 NY Slip Op 01921)

Encompass Ins. Co. v Rockaway Family Med. Care, P.C.

2016 NY Slip Op 01921 [137 AD3d 582]

March 17, 2016

Appellate Division, First Department

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

As corrected through Wednesday, April 27, 2016

[*1]

Encompass Insurance Company, Appellant,
v
Rockaway Family Medical Care, P.C., as Assignee of Sarah Obas, Respondent.

Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville (Matthew Lavoie of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of George T. Lewis, Jr., P.C., Syosset (George T. Lewis, Jr. of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about September 17, 2014, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a de novo review of a master arbitrator’s findings dated December 17, 2013, and for summary judgment declaring in its favor, and sua sponte dismissed the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the complaint and grant the part of the motion seeking a de novo review of the arbitrator’s findings, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for a de novo adjudication of this dispute pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (c).

Plaintiff’s second follow-up request for an examination under oath was sent 11 days after defendant failed to appear on the date set in the first request; the 10th day fell on a Sunday (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.6 [b]). Plaintiff correctly argues that it was entitled to an extension of time to the next business day to send its second follow-up request (see General Construction Law § 25-a). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.