In re the Arbitration between New York City Transit Authority & Ambrosio

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between New York City Transit Authority & Ambrosio

102 Misc. 2d 846, 428 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2022

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 31, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 Misc. 2d 846 (In re the Arbitration between New York City Transit Authority & Ambrosio) 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

In re the Arbitration between New York City Transit Authority & Ambrosio, 102 Misc. 2d 846, 428 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury matter, the claimant fell to the ground as she was walking to the front of a New York City Transit Authority bus to board it. She was three to six feet away from the door when she caught the heel of her shoe in broken pavement and suffered injuries to her foot and shoulder. The matter was submitted to compulsory arbitration pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 675 of the Insurance Law. The arbitrator found that claimant was a "covered person” under the "no-fault” provisions of the Insurance Law. The Transit Authority moved to vacate the award and the court below granted that application.

The scope of judicial review of an arbitrator’s award in a compulsory arbitration is broader than that standard of review utilized in a voluntary arbitration (Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493, 508; Caso v Coffey, 41 NY2d 153, 158; Matter of Furstenberg [Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.], 67 AD2d 580). Applying this broader standard of review to the case at bar the court below properly vacated the award on the ground that the arbitrator’s decision lacked a rational basis. "A pedestrian cannot be converted into a user [of a motor vehicle] by virtue of the close proximity to his vehicle. Intention to use is not synonymous with use” (Thomas v Travelers Ins. Co., 87 Misc 2d 136, 139, affd 54 AD2d 608; see, also, Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. [Gholson], 71 AD2d 1004). The claimant was not a pedestrian injured through the "use or operation” of a motor vehicle as defined in subdivision 10 of section 671 of the Insurance Law and thus, is not a "covered person” under the statute.

Concur: Pino, P. J., and Hirsch, J.; Weinstein, J. taking no part.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury matter, the claimant fell to the ground as she was walking to the front of a New York City Transit Authority bus to board it. She was three to six feet away from the door when she caught the heel of her shoe in broken pavement and suffered injuries to her foot and shoulder. The matter was submitted to compulsory arbitration pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 675 of the Insurance Law. The arbitrator found that claimant was a "covered person” under the "no-fault” provisions of the Insurance Law. The Transit Authority moved to vacate the award and the court below granted that application.

The scope of judicial review of an arbitrator’s award in a compulsory arbitration is broader than that standard of review utilized in a voluntary arbitration (Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493, 508; Caso v Coffey, 41 NY2d 153, 158; Matter of Furstenberg [Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.], 67 AD2d 580). Applying this broader standard of review to the case at bar the court below properly vacated the award on the ground that the arbitrator’s decision lacked a rational basis. "A pedestrian cannot be converted into a user [of a motor vehicle] by virtue of the close proximity to his vehicle. Intention to use is not synonymous with use” (Thomas v Travelers Ins. Co., 87 Misc 2d 136, 139, affd 54 AD2d 608; see, also, Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. [Gholson], 71 AD2d 1004). The claimant was not a pedestrian injured through the "use or operation” of a motor vehicle as defined in subdivision 10 of section 671 of the Insurance Law and thus, is not a "covered person” under the statute.

Concur: Pino, P. J., and Hirsch, J.; Weinstein, J. taking no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 Misc. 2d 846, 428 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1980 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-new-york-city-transit-authority-ambrosio-nyappterm-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack