Opinion
Submitted May 9, 2000.
July 26, 2000.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate the award of a master arbitrator, dated June 25, 1999, which vacated an award of an arbitrator dated March 16, 1999, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated November 9, 1999, which, inter alia, denied the petition.
Thomas Torto, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Harold Samuel Herman, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any of the requisite statutory criteria for vacating an arbitration award (see, CPLR 7511[b]). Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the master arbitrator did not exceed his power, nor did he vacate the award based upon a de novo review of the evidence (see, Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 N.Y.2d 207; Matter of Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. [Berson], 225 A.D.2d 983; cf., Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Keegan, 201 A.D.2d 724). A master arbitrator is empowered to apply the law to a given set of facts even if his or her conclusion differs from that of the arbitrator (see, Martinez v. Metropolitan Prop. Liab. Ins. Co., 146 A.D.2d 610). Accordingly, the master arbitrator did not exceed his powers by vacating the original arbitration award, which, in light of the evidence, was "incorrect as a matter of law" (11 NYCRR 65.18 [a][4]; see, Insurance Law § 5106; Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], supra; Martinez v. Metropolitan Prop. Liab. Ins. Co., supra; Country-Wide Ins. Co. v. Zablozki, 257 A.D.2d 506).
The petitioner's remaining arguments are without merit.