IN RE: Arlene SANDOVAL (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated October 23, 2023, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Robin K. Sheares, J.), dated April 11, 2024.  The order denied the petition and confirmed the arbitration award.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated October 23, 2023.  In an order dated April 11, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the petition and confirmed the arbitration award.  The petitioner appeals.

Since a claim by an insured against an insurance carrier under an uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement is subject to compulsory arbitration, the arbitrator's award is subject to closer judicial scrutiny under CPLR 7511(b) than it would be subject to had the arbitration been conducted pursuant to a voluntary agreement between the parties (see Matter of Deluca v. Arch Ins. Group, 109 A.D.3d 912, 913, 971 N.Y.S.2d 453;  Matter of American Express Prop. Cas. Co. v. Vinci, 63 A.D.3d 1055, 881 N.Y.S.2d 484;  Matter of Mangano v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 55 A.D.3d 916, 866 N.Y.S.2d 348).  “To be upheld, an award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of American Express Prop. Cas. Co. v. Vinci, 63 A.D.3d at 1055, 881 N.Y.S.2d 484 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the arbitrator's determination had evidentiary support and was not arbitrary and capricious (see O'Shea v. Allstate Ins. Co., 215 A.D.3d 758, 759, 185 N.Y.S.3d 691;  Matter of O'Neill v. GEICO Ins. Co., 162 A.D.3d 776, 778, 79 N.Y.S.3d 236;  Matter of Deluca v. Arch Ins. Group, 109 A.D.3d at 913, 971 N.Y.S.2d 453).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and confirmed the arbitration award.

DILLON, J.P., DOWLING, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.