Global Liberty Ins. Co., Matter of v. Lenox Hill Radiology & Med. Imaging Assoc., P.C.

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedDecember 7, 2016
Docket2016 NYSlipOp 51792(U)
StatusPublished

This text of Global Liberty Ins. Co., Matter of v. Lenox Hill Radiology & Med. Imaging Assoc., P.C. (Global Liberty Ins. Co., Matter of v. Lenox Hill Radiology & Med. Imaging Assoc., P.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Global Liberty Ins. Co., Matter of v. Lenox Hill Radiology & Med. Imaging Assoc., P.C., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion



In The Matter of Global Liberty Insurance Co., Appellant,

against

Lenox Hill Radiology & Medical Imaging Assoc., P.C., as Assignee of Trevor Ellis, Respondent.


Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Vincent J. Martorana, J.), dated June 5, 2015. The order denied a petition by Global Liberty Insurance Company to vacate a master arbitrator's award.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this proceeding, petitioner seeks to vacate a master arbitrator's award, which upheld the award of an arbitrator granting the provider's claim for reimbursement of assigned first-party no-fault benefits in the sum of $78.29. The District Court denied the unopposed petition.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the determination of the master arbitrator had a rational basis and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to settled law (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214 [1996]; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207 [1981]; Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 AD2d 442 [1980]). Thus, the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award was properly denied, and the master arbitrator's award was properly confirmed (see CPLR 7511 [e]), albeit on a different ground than relied upon by the arbitrator.

We note that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment, not an order (see CPLR 411).

Marano, P.J., Iannacci and Garguilo, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: December 07, 2016

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

Related

In re the Arbitration between Petrofsky & Allstate Insurance
429 N.E.2d 755 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)
In re the Arbitration between Shand & Aetna Insurance
74 A.D.2d 442 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Global Liberty Ins. Co., Matter of v. Lenox Hill Radiology & Med. Imaging Assoc., P.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/global-liberty-ins-co-matter-of-v-lenox-hill-radiology-med-imaging-nyappterm-2016.