Empire Mutual Insurance v. Hornick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Empire Mutual Insurance v. Hornick

189 A.D.2d 707, 592 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 661

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 26, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about October 28, 1991, which denied petitioner’s application to vacate the award of the Master Arbitrator dated March 29, 1991, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner’s contentions rest upon the erroneous premise that the Master Arbitrator was required to uphold the propriety of its denial of respondent’s claim in the face of respondent’s refusal to keep two dental appointments scheduled by petitioner. The Master Arbitrator, however, upheld the finding of the arbitrator that petitioner had acted improperly and in violation of 11 NYCRR 65.15 (a) by treating the respondent-applicant as an adversary, and that its denial of respondent’s claim, therefore, was improper. That determination is not irrational and petitioner’s claim that the Master Arbitrator "exceeded his power or so imperfectly executed it that a final [708] and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made” (CPLR 7511 [b] [iii]; Insurance Law § 5106 [c]) is without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about October 28, 1991, which denied petitioner’s application to vacate the award of the Master Arbitrator dated March 29, 1991, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner’s contentions rest upon the erroneous premise that the Master Arbitrator was required to uphold the propriety of its denial of respondent’s claim in the face of respondent’s refusal to keep two dental appointments scheduled by petitioner. The Master Arbitrator, however, upheld the finding of the arbitrator that petitioner had acted improperly and in violation of 11 NYCRR 65.15 (a) by treating the respondent-applicant as an adversary, and that its denial of respondent’s claim, therefore, was improper. That determination is not irrational and petitioner’s claim that the Master Arbitrator "exceeded his power or so imperfectly executed it that a final [708] and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made” (CPLR 7511 [b] [iii]; Insurance Law § 5106 [c]) is without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

Empire Mutual Insurance v. Hornick, 189 A.D.2d 707, 592 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

189 A.D.2d 707 (Empire Mutual Insurance v. Hornick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related