Opinion
01-07-2016
TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee of Glenn Wharton, Petitioner–Respondent, v. COUNTRYWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent–Appellant.
Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP, New York (Jean H. Kang of counsel), for appellant. Feldman & Feldman, LLP, Smithtown (Gwenn E. Haesler of counsel), for respondent.
Jaffe & Koumourdas, LLP, New York (Jean H. Kang of counsel), for appellant.
Feldman & Feldman, LLP, Smithtown (Gwenn E. Haesler of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about August 27, 2014, which granted petitioner's motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denied respondent's cross motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The arbitration award is supported by the "reasonable hypothesis," drawn from petitioner's unrefuted evidence and the reasonable inferences arising therefrom, that the vehicle insured by petitioner was used principally for the transportation of persons for hire, and therefore satisfied the threshold requirements of Insurance Law § 5105(a) (see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 214, 224, 652 N.Y.S.2d 584, 674 N.E.2d 1349 [1996] ; Matter of Tri State Consumer Ins. Co. v. High Point Prop. & Cas. Co., 127 A.D.3d 980, 7 N.Y.S.3d 406 [2d Dept.2015] ).
Respondent's contention that the award was procured by arbitrator misconduct, i.e., the failure to hold petitioner to its threshold burden of showing that the minimum requirements of Insurance Law § 5105(a) were met, is undermined by the record.
TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, RICHTER, GISCHE, JJ., concur.