IN RE: AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an award of a master arbitrator dated April 8, 2022, which confirmed an award of an arbitrator dated December 4, 2021, Big Apple Pain Management, PLLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Joy F. Campanelli, J.), dated January 24, 2024.  The order granted the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award and, in effect, denied the cross-petition of Big Apple Pain Management, PLLC, to confirm the master arbitrator's award.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the cross-petition is granted, and the master arbitrator's award dated April 8, 2022, is confirmed.

In October 2019, Carlos Nieto was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Staten Island.  From February 2020 through June 2020, Nieto received medical services from Big Apple Pain Management, PLLC (hereinafter Big Apple), for injuries he sustained in the accident.  Big Apple submitted insurance claims to the petitioner American Transit Insurance Company (hereinafter American Transit) for reimbursement of the cost of services performed, in the total sum of $1,417.73.  American Transit denied the insurance claims.  Thereafter, Big Apple submitted the insurance claims to arbitration.  In an award dated December 4, 2021, after a hearing, an arbitrator awarded Big Apple the total sum of $1,417.73.  American Transit then requested that the matter be reviewed by a master arbitrator.  In an award of the master arbitrator dated April 8, 2022, the master arbitrator confirmed the arbitration award dated December 4, 2021, in its entirety.

In May 2022, American Transit commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate the master arbitrator's award.  Big Apple opposed the petition and cross-petitioned to confirm the award.  In an order dated January 24, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award and, in effect, denied Big Apple's cross-petition.  Big Apple appeals.

“ ‘Consistent with the public policy in favor of arbitration, the grounds specified in CPLR 7511 for vacating or modifying a no-fault arbitration award are few in number and narrowly applied’ ” (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Westchester Med. Group, M.D., 125 A.D.3d 649, 650, 3 N.Y.S.3d 81, quoting Matter of Mercury Cas. Co. v. Healthmakers Med. Group, P.C., 67 A.D.3d 1017, 1017, 888 N.Y.S.2d 762).  “Arbitrators exceed their power only when they issue an award that ‘violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power’ ” (Matter of County of Nassau v. Nassau County Investigators Police Benevolent Assn., Inc., 203 A.D.3d 824, 826, 164 N.Y.S.3d 637, quoting American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Allied Capital Corp., 35 N.Y.3d 64, 70, 125 N.Y.S.3d 340, 149 N.E.3d 33;  see Matter of Dluhy v. Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C., 220 A.D.3d 659, 659, 195 N.Y.S.3d 810).  “ ‘The master arbitrator's determination of the law need not be correct:  mere errors of law are insufficient to set aside the award of a master arbitrator’ ” (Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v. Country–Wide Ins. Co., 170 A.D.3d 1168, 1168, 94 N.Y.S.3d 886, quoting Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Spine Americare Med., 294 A.D.2d 574, 577, 743 N.Y.S.2d 144;  see Matter of Advanced Orthopaedics, PLLC v. Country–Wide Ins. Co., 204 A.D.3d 787, 787, 164 N.Y.S.3d 500).

Here, American Transit failed to demonstrate the existence of any statutory grounds for vacating the master arbitrator's award (see Matter of V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. Country–Wide Ins. Co., 176 A.D.3d 832, 833–834, 107 N.Y.S.3d 879;  Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 167 A.D.3d 869, 870, 90 N.Y.S.3d 314).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award and granted the cross-petition to confirm the master arbitrator's award.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and GOLIA, JJ., concur.