Auto One Insurance v. Hillside Chiropractic, P.C.

126 A.D.3d 423, 2 N.Y.S.3d 343
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 3, 2015
Docket14398N 161419/13
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 423 (Auto One Insurance v. Hillside Chiropractic, P.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Auto One Insurance v. Hillside Chiropractic, P.C., 126 A.D.3d 423, 2 N.Y.S.3d 343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered July 2, 2014, which denied the petition seeking to vacate the determination of the Master Arbitrator, dated November 6, 2013, affirming the award of the lower arbitrator in this no-fault arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, the arbitration award vacated, and the matter remanded for a new arbitration hearing before a different arbitrator.

The no-fault arbitrator gave no weight to an independent *424 medical examination (IME) report, prepared by a chiropractor and submitted by petitioner, because it was not notarized pursuant to CPLR 2106. The Master Arbitrator, in reviewing the award, deferred to the no-fault arbitrator’s determination of the weight to be given to the evidence, as did the IAS court.

We find that the no-fault arbitrator’s decision to adhere, with strict conformity, to the evidentiary rule set forth in CPLR 2106, although such conformity is not required (see 11 NYCRR 65-4.5 [o] [1] [“The arbitrator shall be the judge of the relevance and materiality of the evidence offered, and strict conformity to legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary”]), was arbitrary. Accordingly, the award must be vacated (see Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 211 [1981]). We note that since no substantive determination regarding the weight of the IME report was ever made, the Master Arbitrator and the IAS court erred in deferring to the no-fault arbitrator’s determination.

Concur — -Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, ManzanetDaniels and Feinman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Community Med. Imaging P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.
2024 NY Slip Op 50301(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v. Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C.
139 A.D.3d 645 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 A.D.3d 423, 2 N.Y.S.3d 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auto-one-insurance-v-hillside-chiropractic-pc-nyappdiv-2015.