Opinion
10260 Index 652376/17
10-31-2019
In re TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY INC., Petitioner–Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE MAX INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent–Respondent.
Marschhausen & Fitzpatrick, P.C., Hicksville (Kevin P. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for appellant. Carman, Callahan & Ingham, LLP, Farmingdale (Paul A. Barrett of counsel), for respondent.
Marschhausen & Fitzpatrick, P.C., Hicksville (Kevin P. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for appellant.
Carman, Callahan & Ingham, LLP, Farmingdale (Paul A. Barrett of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Kern, Singh, JJ.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered on or about December 8, 2017, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award dated February 4, 2017 and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The award in this compulsory arbitration was neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious (see e.g. 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 [1996] ; Caso v. Coffey, 41 N.Y.2d 153, 158, 391 N.Y.S.2d 88, 391 N.Y.S.2d 88, 359 N.E.2d 683 [1976] ). It was rational for the arbitrator to rely on guidance from the Loss Transfer Advisory Committee and the Office of General Counsel, New York State Insurance Department (see Matter of City of Syracuse v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. , 61 N.Y.2d 691, 693, 472 N.Y.S.2d 600, 460 N.E.2d 1085 [1984] ).