Opinion
2017–03464 Index No. 118/14
03-27-2019
In the Matter of ACUHEALTH ACUPUNCTURE, P.C., etc., Respondent, v. COUNTRY–WIDE INS. CO., Appellant.
Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP (Thomas Torto, New York, N.Y. [Jason Levine], of counsel), for appellant. Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Stefan Belinfanti and David M. Gottlieb of counsel), for respondent.
Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP (Thomas Torto, New York, N.Y. [Jason Levine], of counsel), for appellant.
Gary Tsirelman, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Stefan Belinfanti and David M. Gottlieb of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
"A master arbitrator's determination that the arbitrator incorrectly applied substantive law may not be set aside, unless it is irrational" ( Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Spine Americare Med., 294 A.D.2d 574, 576, 743 N.Y.S.2d 144 ; see Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v. Country–Wide Ins. Co., 149 A.D.3d 828, 829, 52 N.Y.S.3d 123 ). "The master arbitrator's determination of the law need not be correct: mere errors of law are insufficient to set aside the award of a master arbitrator" ( Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Spine Americare Med., 294 A.D.2d at 577, 743 N.Y.S.2d 144 ). "If the master arbitrator vacates the arbitrator's award based upon an alleged error of ‘a rule of substantive law,’ the determination of the master arbitrator must be upheld unless it is irrational" ( id. at 576, 743 N.Y.S.2d 144 ; see Matter of Acuhealth Acupu ncture, P.C. v. Country–Wide Ins. Co., 149 A.D.3d at 829, 52 N.Y.S.3d 123 ). Here, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination vacating the master arbitrator's determination, as there was no rational basis to support it.
The petitioner is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees for this appeal (see 11 NYCRR 65–4.10 [j][4]; Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v. AAAMG Leasing Corp., 148 A.D.3d 703, 705, 51 N.Y.S.3d 93 ). Accordingly, we must remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to determine the petitioner's reasonable attorneys' fees for this appeal (see Matter of GEICO Ins. Co. v. AAAMG Leasing Corp., 148 A.D.3d at 705, 51 N.Y.S.3d 93 ; Matter of Country–Wide Ins. Co. v. Bay Needle Care Acupuncture, P.C., 162 A.D.3d 407, 408, 78 N.Y.S.3d 321 ).
DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.