Opinion
2007-1777 K C.
Decided October 27, 2008.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Loren Baily-Schiffman, J.), entered September 28, 2007. The order granted a petition to vacate a master arbitrator's award.
Order reversed, without costs, petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award denied, and matter remanded to the court below for the entry of a judgment confirming the master arbitrator's award.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
Valentin Avanessov, Physician, P.C. commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate a master arbitrator's award which upheld the denial of its claim for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The court granted the petition and this appeal ensued.
The papers submitted by petitioner to the Civil Court were insufficient on their face to warrant the granting of any relief ( see SP Medical, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co. , 20 Misc 3d 126 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51230[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2008]). Petitioner submitted a document that was denominated an "Affirmation in Support." The only document submitted in support of the petition was one which was not affirmed "to be true under the penalties of perjury" (CPLR 2106). Indeed, the attorney who signed the document merely indicates that he "states as follows," which is insufficient under the law ( see Puntino v Chin, 288 AD2d 202; Jones v Schmitt , 7 Misc 3d 47 [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2005]; see also A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. , 11 Misc 3d 137[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50504[U] [App Term, 2d 11th Jud Dists 2006]). Accordingly, the document is insufficient as an affirmation ( see SP Medical, P.C., 20 Misc 3d 126[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51230[U]).
In view of the foregoing, the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award should have been denied. Furthermore, upon denying the petition, the court is required, pursuant to CPLR 7511 (e), to confirm the award ( see Matter of Exclusive Med. Diagnostic v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 306 AD2d 476). While we do not reach the remaining contentions, we note that a special proceeding should terminate in a judgment, not an order ( see CPLR 411).
Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.