IN RE: Government Employees Insurance Company (2014)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: Government Employees Insurance Company, respondent, v. Cheryl Schussheim, appellant.

2013–11213 (Index No. 1622 /10)

Decided: November 19, 2014

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. L. PRISCILLA HALL LEONARD B. AUSTIN JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

Cheryl Schussheim, Mineola, N.Y., appellant pro se. Gail S. Lauzon (Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City, N.Y. [Donald S. Neuman, Jr.], of counsel), for respondent. Here, the appellant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator was biased against her and in favor of her adversary (see Matter of Denaro v Cruz, 115 AD3d at 742; Matter of Mays–Carr [State Farm Ins. Co.], 43 AD3d 1439, 1440). Moreover, the appellant's contention that the arbitrator had ex parte communications with opposing counsel about the case while they waited in the hearing room for the appellant, who was more than a half hour late to the hearing, is speculative.

Argued—October 2, 2014

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for supplementary underinsured motorist benefits, Cheryl Schussheim appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered August 16, 2013, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 7511(b) to vacate an arbitration award and to schedule a new hearing before a different arbitrator.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“[J]udicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited” (Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 479). “A party seeking to overturn an arbitration award on one or more grounds stated in CPLR 7511(b)(1) bears a ‘heavy burden’ ” (Matter of Denaro v. Cruz, 115 AD3d 742, 742–743, quoting Matter of Local 295–295C, IUOE v Phoenix Envtl. Servs. Corp., 21 AD3d 901, 901; see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Valeri, 221 A.D.2d 337, 338). The movant has to demonstrate that vacatur is appropriate by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Denaro v. Cruz, 115 AD3d at 742; Matter of Susan D. Settenbrino, P.C. v Barroga–Hayes, 89 AD3d 1094, 1096; Matter of Hausknecht v Comprehensive Med. Care of N.Y., P.C., 24 AD3d 778, 780).

The appellant also failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that she was deprived of an opportunity to present her case, as there were no stenographic minutes of the hearing itself to support such a claim (see Matter of Broderick v. Suffolk County Bar Assn., 157 A.D.2d 780), and the evidence she submitted in support of her motion showed that she was not deprived of an opportunity to present her case.

RIVERA, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network