Green v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

16 A.D.3d 457, 791 N.Y.S.2d 630, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2607
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 14, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 457 (Green v. Liberty Mutual Insurance) 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
Green v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, 16 A.D.3d 457, 791 N.Y.S.2d 630, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to recover no-fault benefits, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molía, J.), dated February 10, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and Insurance Law § 5106 (c).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that he was entitled to a trial de novo of his no-fault claim pursuant to Insurance Law § 5106 (c) because the amount in controversy was greater than $5,000. We disagree. The statute permits an insurer or a claimant to institute a court action to adjudicate the dispute de novo where the master arbitrator’s award is $5,000 or greater. Here, the master arbitrator made no monetary award and the statutory predicate for a de novo court adjudication was not satisfied (see General Acc. Fire & Life Ins. Co. v Avlonitis, 156 AD2d 424 [1989]; Harley v United Servs. Automobile Assn., 191 AD2d 768, 769 [1993]; see also Matter of Greenberg [Ryder Truck Rental], 70 NY2d 573 [1987]).

The plaintiff contends, in the alternative, that the statute is unconstitutional because the $5,000 threshold limits the ability of claimants to obtain de novo court adjudication while allowing insurance companies readier access to the judicial forum. We disagree. Insurance Law § 5106 (c) does not violate due process and equal protection because the classification it creates between claimants and insurance carriers is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest and has a rational basis (see Booth v Hartford Ins. Group, 531 F Supp 481 [1982]; Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Harnett, 426 F Supp 1030 [1977]; see also City of New [458]*458Orleans v Dukes, 427 US 297 [1976]). Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Avenue C Medical, P.C. v. Encompass Insurance
130 A.D.3d 764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 457, 791 N.Y.S.2d 630, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-liberty-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-2005.