You are here: / / AN ARBITRATOR’S DETERMINATION WILL NOT BE REVERSED BECAUSE OF AN...
,

AN ARBITRATOR’S DETERMINATION WILL NOT BE REVERSED BECAUSE OF AN ERROR OF LAW, BUT WILL BE REVERSED WHERE, AS HERE, IT IS IRRATIONAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the arbitrator, noted that an arbitrator’s determination will not be reversed because of an error of law, but will be reversed if the determination is irrational. Here the arbitrator’s determinations with respect to no-fault insurance coverage were deemed irrational:

“[A] 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” … . “If the master arbitrator vacates the arbitrator’s award based upon an alleged error of ‘a rule of substantive law,’ the determination of the master arbitrator must be upheld unless it is irrational” … . …

The master arbitrator’s determination that a denial of liability based upon a failure to appear at an examination under oath constitutes a defense of lack of coverage, which is not subject to preclusion, is irrational … . Further, the master arbitrator’s application of 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(p) is irrational, as it effectively allows an insurer to avoid the statutory timeliness requirements set forth in 11 NYCRR 65-3.8(a). Where, as here, the initial request for an examination under oath is sent more than 30 days after receipt of the claim, the request is a nullity … , and the insurer’s failure to timely notice the examination under oath is not excused by 11 NYCRR 65-3.5(p) … . Matter of Advanced Orthopaedics, PLLC v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 02406, Second Dept 4-13-22

Practice Point: An arbitrator’s determination will not be reversed because the arbitrator made an error of law. Only an irrational determination will be reversed by a court.

 

You might also like
In an Appeal from an Order Made Upon Appellant’s Default, Only Matters Contested Below Can Be Heard—Here the Only Matter Contested Below Was Appellants’ Request for an Adjournment to Obtain New Counsel—Relevant Review Criteria Explained
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED BY THE CONDITION HE WAS HIRED TO FIX IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO VACATE A DISMISSAL AND ALLOW AMENDMENT PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF PARTICULARS, PLAINTIFF’S DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH A CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER WAS SHORT AND WAS ADEQUATELY EXCUSED BY LAW OFFICER FAILURE (SECOND DEPT
TENANT ABUTTING SIDEWALK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CLEAR ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THAT IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY DETERMINED MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WERE PROPERLY TERMINATED; MOTHER AND THE DISSENT ARGUED THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DISCOURAGED HER FROM COMMUNICATING WITH IT WELL BEFORE THE ABANDONMENT PERIOD (SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE FILING OF THE TERMINATION PETITION) AND THE JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY PROHIBITED HER FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE FROM BEFORE THE ABANDONMENT PERIOD (SECOND DEPT).
MARIJUANA AND GRAVITY-KNIFE CONVICTIONS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THE “OFFENSES” HAVE BEEN DECRIMINALIZED (SECOND DEPT).
CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE AND VACATION OF A NOTICE OF PENDENCY MUST BE SOUGHT BY AN ACTION OR A COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501, NOT, AS HERE, BY A CROSS-MOTION; THE ISSUE WAS PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
HERE A DISPUTE AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY WAS RESOLVED BY AN OPEN COURT STIPULATION (CONTRACT) WHICH CANNOT BE INVALIDATED ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION, MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE APPROVING THE SUBSEQUENT APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY A RECEIVER WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE EIGHT-INCH WIDE BEAM CLAIMANT WAS MOVING ALONG WHEN HE FELL WAS THE FUNCTIONAL... FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED TO FATHER THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE...