February 23, 2017

Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Radiology of Westchester, P.C. (2017 NY Slip Op 01461)

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether the master arbitrator's award, which granted respondent no-fault insurance benefits, should be vacated. The court considered the fact that the petitioner's evidence established that the assignor failed to appear at three scheduled examinations under oath. The court held that the master arbitrator's award was arbitrary because it irrationally ignored the uncontroverted evidence presented by the petitioner. As a result, the court unanimously reversed the denial of the petition to vacate the award and directed the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. This case demonstrates how courts may consider relevant evidence and the rationality of arbitrator's decisions when determining whether to vacate an award.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Radiology of Westchester, P.C. (2017 NY Slip Op 01461)

Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Radiology of Westchester, P.C.

2017 NY Slip Op 01461 [147 AD3d 652]

February 23, 2017

Appellate Division, First Department

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

As corrected through Wednesday, March 29, 2017

[*1]

Country-Wide Insurance Company, Appellant,
v
Radiology of Westchester, P.C., as Assignee of Elizabeth Colon, Respondent.

Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP, New York (Jean H. Kang of counsel), for appellant.

Frank S. Patruno Law Offices P.C., Montgomery (Frank S. Patruno of counsel), for respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J), entered August 11, 2015, denying the unopposed petition to vacate a master arbitration award, dated March 17, 2015, which affirmed an arbitrator’s award that had granted respondent no-fault insurance benefits, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, and the award vacated. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The master arbitrator’s award was arbitrary because it irrationally ignored petitioner’s uncontroverted evidence establishing that the assignor failed to appear at the three scheduled examinations under oath (cf. Hertz Corp. v Active Care Med. Supply Corp., 124 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2015]; Easy Care Acupuncture P.C. v Praetorian Ins. Co., 49 Misc 3d 137[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51524[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Richter, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.