From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

QUEENS CMTY MED. v. MOTOR VEH. ACC. INDEM.

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 2008
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 50089 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)

Opinion

2005-1999 K C.

Decided on January 8, 2008.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Eileen Nadelson, J.), entered September 27, 2005. The judgment granted the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award, implicitly denied the cross petition to confirm the master arbitrator's award and awarded petitioner the principal sum of $8,130.88.

Judgment reversed without costs, petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award denied and judgment directed to be entered confirming the master arbitrator's award.

PRESENT: WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ.


Queens Community Medical, P.C. (QCM) commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate a master arbitrator's award which denied its claims for assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) cross-petitioned to confirm the master arbitrator's award (CPLR 7510). The court entered judgment vacating the master arbitrator's award, implicitly denied the cross petition seeking confirmation of the master arbitrator's award and awarded QCM the principal sum of $8,130.88. This appeal by MVAIC ensued.

An arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding to recover no-fault benefits may raise any issue which the arbitrator deems relevant ( see Insurance Department Regulations [ 11 NYCRR] § 65-4.4 [e]; § 65-4.5 [o]; see also Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 872; 563 Grand Med., P.C. v New York State Ins. Dept., 24 AD3d 413; cf. Matter of Health Endurance Med., P.C. v Deerbrook Ins. Co., 44 AD3d 857). Inasmuch as the master arbitrator determined that, based upon the documents submitted to the arbitrator, the arbitrator had a rational basis for finding that QCM failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of medical necessity, the master arbitrator's determination was not arbitrary, capricious or irrational ( see Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207). We note that the denial of claim forms issued by MVAIC were not annexed to the petition which sought vacatur of the master arbitrator's award. Accordingly, the record does not support a determination that the arbitrator's decision was based on a precluded defense.MVAIC's cross petition to confirm the master arbitrator's award was unnecessary "since CPLR 7511 (e) mandates an automatic confirmation upon denial of a motion to vacate or modify" ( Matter of White v Department of Law of State of N.Y., 184 AD2d 229, 230; see also Matter of Exclusive Med. Diagnostic v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 306 AD2d 476).

In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

QUEENS CMTY MED. v. MOTOR VEH. ACC. INDEM.

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 8, 2008
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 50089 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)
Case details for

QUEENS CMTY MED. v. MOTOR VEH. ACC. INDEM.

Case Details

Full title:QUEENS COMMUNITY MEDICAL, P.C. A/A/O MICHAEL BOYCE, Respondent, v. MOTOR…

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 8, 2008

Citations

2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 50089 (N.Y. App. Term 2008)