AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY v. BRONX CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATE (2026)

The following papers were used on this motion: NYSCEF Document Nos. 58-62, 66-70, 72.

Upon the foregoing papers, the Court having elected to determine the within motion(s) on submission pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.8-f and IAS Part 2 Rules, Part II (Motions & Special Proceedings), Subpart C (Appearances & Post-Order Matters), Section 6 (Personal Appearances) (“All motions presumptively are to be argued in person unless the Court informs the parties at least two days in advance that it has made a sua sponte determination that a motion will be determined on submission.”), and due deliberation having been had thereon,

It is hereby ORDERED as follows:

This is a de novo action commenced following the determination by a No-Fault insurance master arbitrator affirming an arbitrator's determination in which Defendant herein was awarded $5,239.76 in health service benefits to be paid by Plaintiff herein. De novo actions in No-Fault insurance disputes where the amount in dispute equals or is greater than $5,000 are provided for in Insurance Law § 5106 (c):

The award of a master arbitrator shall be binding except for the grounds for review set forth in article seventy-five of the civil practice law and rules, and provided further that where the amount of such master arbitrator's award is five thousand dollars or greater, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, the insurer or the claimant may institute a court action to adjudicate the dispute de novo.

Defendant moves to dismiss on the asserted ground that the master arbitrator did not award an amount equal to or greater than $5,000 — that he merely affirmed the award of the hearing arbitrator, which happened to award $5,239.76. If this Court were to adopt Defendant's position, then the only time one could commence a de novo action with respect to a No-Fault insurance arbitration would be when the master reverses or modifies and states specifically that a certain amount, which is at least $5,000, is awarded. Defendant's position distorts the provision of Insurance Law § 5106 (c), which clearly affords any party in No-Fault insurance arbitration to seek relief in court on a de novo basis when the master arbitrator's award results in the insurance company having to pay $5,000 or more in No-Fault benefits. Courts normally accord statutes their plain meaning, but will not blindly apply the words of a statute to arrive at an unreasonable or absurd result (see People v Santi, 3 NY3d 234, 242 [2004]). “[I]n the interpretation of statutes we must consider the main object in view, as well as the general scope of their leading provisions” (People ex rel. Wood v Lacombe, 99 NY 43, 55 [1885]).

Master arbitration was provided for in the 1977 amendment enacted in Chapter 892 of the Laws of 1977. The amendment followed court decisions which deprived parties of review of legal error in arbitration awards, based on Article 75's standards for review. However, the newly created position of master arbitrator could reverse on an error of law. Enabling a party to commence a de novo action was a compromise to a situation where insurance companies were compelled to abide by arbitration determinations where court review in Article 75 proceedings was on limited grounds. For close to the 50 years since 1977, Insurance Law § 5106 (c) has been interpreted to mean that if as a result of master arbitration an insurance company is directed to pay $5,000 or more following participation in the arbitration process, a de novo action to adjudicate the No-Fault benefits dispute was available.

Accordingly, the within motion by Defendant to dismiss the complaint is DENIED.

Aaron D. Maslow, J.