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

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 26, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 707 (Empire Mutual Insurance v. Hornick) 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

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

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]*708and 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]*708and 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 707, 592 N.Y.S.2d 917, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-mutual-insurance-v-hornick-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack