"To be upheld, an award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious" (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d at 223 [citations omitted]; see Matter of Santer v Board of Educ. of E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 23 NY3d 251, 261; Matter of Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Fiduciary Ins. Co. of Am., 123 AD3d 933, 934; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v City of Yonkers, 21 AD3d 1110, 1111). Moreover, with respect to determinations of law, the applicable standard in mandatory no-fault arbitrations is whether "any reasonable hypothesis can be found to support the questioned interpretation" (Matter of Shand [Aetna Ins. Co.], 74 AD2d 442, 454; see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indemn. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d at 224; Matter of Scottsdale Ins. Co. v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 107 AD3d 1003, 1003-1004; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 18 AD3d 762, 763; Matter of Hanover Ins. Co. v State FarmMut. Auto. Ins. Co., 226 AD2d 533, 534; Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. v Jones, 151 AD2d 754; Massapequa Gen. Hosp. v Travelers Ins. Co., 104 AD2d 638, 640). Keeping our limited scope of judicial review in mind, and upon an application of the relevant law, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly determined that the arbitrator's award was supported by a "reasonable hypothesis" and was not arbitrary and capricious ( see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d at 224; Matter of Progressive N. Ins. Co. v Sentry Ins. A Mut. Co., 51 AD3d 800, 802; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 18 AD3d at 763).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. “To be upheld, an award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 214, 223, 652 N.Y.S.2d 584, 674 N.E.2d 1349;see Matter of Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 107 A.D.3d 1003, 1003, 966 N.Y.S.2d 896). Here, the arbitrator's findings that the claimant sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), and was entitled to a certain award, had a rational basis in the record and were not arbitrary and capricious.