Home/New York Court of Appeals/In Re the Arbitration Between Levine & Zurich American Insurance

In Re the Arbitration Between Levine & Zurich American Insurance

405 N.E.2d 675, 49 N.Y.2d 907, 428 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2261
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 3, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 405 N.E.2d 675 (In Re the Arbitration Between Levine & Zurich American Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re the Arbitration Between Levine & Zurich American Insurance, 405 N.E.2d 675, 49 N.Y.2d 907, 428 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2261 (N.Y. 1980).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the arbitration award reinstated.

The arbitrator found that the basic economic loss was not incorporated in the jury’s verdict. While the Judge in the third-party action submitted to the jury conventional items of special damage, including those covered by the no-fault law, it does not necessarily follow that in reaching its verdict, which was a general one, the jury, in assessing damages, in fact decided to allow these items. Since the plaintiff sought a sum greatly in excess of $180,000 for the objective, permanent injuries sustained and for his prospective vocational handicap, it is not inconceivable that the jury, in arriving at its compromise figure may have decided not to include the no-fault items in its own computation of damages. Moreover, it was agreed between the parties, who never moved to stay the arbitration which took place only after the third-party action had been concluded, that the arbitrator was to determine "whether or not there was a disposition of the[se] benefits] via the jury verdict” (cf. Matter of Garcia v Federal Ins. Co., 46 NY2d 1040, 1042). Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the arbitrator’s finding did not have a "basis in [909]*909reason” (Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493, 510; see Caso v Coffey, 41 NY2d 153, 158).

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

Related

Hyde v. North River Insurance
92 A.D.2d 1001 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Acevedo v. G.E.I.C.O.
87 A.D.2d 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
In re the Arbitration between Allstate Insurance & O'Kelly
81 A.D.2d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
McCoy v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance
107 Misc. 2d 1090 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1981)
Record v. Royal Globe Insurance
105 Misc. 2d 1029 (New York Supreme Court, 1980)
Heslin v. City of Cohoes
74 A.D.2d 393 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
In re the Arbitration between Shand & Aetna Insurance
74 A.D.2d 442 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
McKenna v. County of Nassau Office of County Attorney
75 A.D.2d 815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
MATTER OF CENT. GEN. HOSP. v. Hanover Ins. Co.
49 N.Y.2d 950 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Central General Hospital v. Hanover Insurance
406 N.E.2d 739 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
In Re the Arbitration Between Levine & Zurich American Insurance
405 N.E.2d 675 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
405 N.E.2d 675, 49 N.Y.2d 907, 428 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-levine-zurich-american-insurance-ny-1980.