Court Opinion

ID: 9954294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:10:42.264628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:05.276304
License: Public Domain

Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Physical Therapy of N.Y.
                          P.C.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30942(U)
                     March 20, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 650700/2022
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
   York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                                   INDEX NO. 650700/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          650700/2022
                COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE        03/23/20221
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
                PHYSICAL THERAPY OF NEW YORK P.C., a/a/o
                Voravetvudhikun Prapas,                                                            DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                         MOTION

                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1-12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
            17, 18, 19, 20, 21
            were read on this motion to/for                                 VACATE - DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT/AWARD.

                      The petition to vacate arbitration awards is denied and, pursuant to CPLR 7511(e), the

            Court affirms the award.

            Background

                      In this proceeding concerning no-fault benefits, petitioner seeks to vacate both a lower

            arbitration award and a master arbitration award. It explains that a vehicle it insured was in

            accident while being test driven by an employee of the repair shop following repairs. Petitioner

            alleges that another individual (Voravetvudhikun Prapas) riding a motorized bike collided with

            the subject vehicle. Prapas sought medical care and respondent submitted a reimbursement to

            petitioner. Petitioner argues that coverage is not available for accidents involving a motorized

            bicycle and therefore the awards should be vacated.

            1
              Although this proceeding was only assigned to the undersigned a few days ago, the Court apologizes, on behalf of
            the court system, for the lengthy delay in the resolution of this proceeding. Nearly two years to decide the instant
            motion is way, way too long.
                650700/2022 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. PHYSICAL THERAPY OF NEW                               Page 1 of 5
                YORK P.C.
                Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 650700/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                   Petitioner claims that after the arbitral awards, a justice in this county found that the Mr.

            Prapas was working as a delivery driver on the date of the accident and that worker’s

            compensation was the primary remedy for any medical expenses.

                   In opposition, respondent contends that petitioner failed to satisfy any of the grounds for

            vacatur of the arbitration awards. It observes that there is no basis to find that Mr. Prapas was in

            the course of his employment when the accident occurred and that petitioner relied, mainly, on

            uncorroborated statements.

                   In reply, petitioner claims it established that the assignor (Prapas) was operating a

            motorized bicycle while working as a delivery driver for a restaurant. It insists that this means

            that he is not eligible for no-fault benefits. Petitioner argues that the “Supreme Court decision

            takes precedent [sic] for final determination.”

            Discussion

                    CPLR 7511 provides just four grounds for vacating an arbitration award, including that

            the arbitrator exceeded his power, which “occurs only where the arbitrator's award violates a

            strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the

            arbitrator's power. Mere errors of fact or law are insufficient to vacate an arbitral award. Courts

            are obligated to give deference to the decision of the arbitrator, even if the arbitrator misapplied

            the substantive law in the area of the contract” (NRT New York LLC v Spell, 166 AD3d 438, 438-

            39, 88 NYS3d 34 [1st Dept 2018]).

                   The lower arbitrator observed that “There is still conflicting evidence regarding whether

            the vehicle was a bicycle, motorcycle or motorized bike. And I note that certain motorized bikes

            would not be considered motorcycles as it depends on how many miles per hour, [sic] they are

            able to reach. Moreover, the NF-2 signed by the Assignor says he was not in the course of his

             650700/2022 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. PHYSICAL THERAPY OF NEW                Page 2 of 5
             YORK P.C.
             Motion No. 001

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 650700/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            employment. I can only go by the record before me which remains unchanged from the [sic]

            when I last reviewed it for the linked case” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 3 at 3).

                     She observed that in that linked case (a related arbitration), she found that “[Petitioner]’s

            investigation is wholly insufficient to prove any of the assertions it made. Namely, there is no

            written statement by the insured, garage owner, mechanic, or Assignor. There is no written

            correspondence with the Assignor's attorney. There is no evidence that the Assignor was riding a

            motorcycle or motorized bicycle. And there is no evidence that the Assignor was in the course of

            his employment. [Petitioner] relies upon a couple of conversations its claims representative had

            with the Assignor's attorney and then issued its denials based upon uncorroborated statements

            made by the insured and the Assignor's attorney” (id.). The lower arbitrator concluded that “I

            find for the Applicant. Applicant made out a prima facie case of entitlement to reimbursement of

            its claims” (id.). Respondent was awarded $575.52 with interest to run from February 13, 2020

            (id. at 4).

                     The master arbitrator affirmed the lower arbitrator’s award and observed that she found

            no evidence in the record to support the inference that the Assignor was in the course of his

            employment the time of the accident” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 6 at 3). She concluded that “The

            assessment of weight, relevance, credibility and persuasiveness of the evidence is within the

            exclusive jurisdiction of the lower arbitrator. Taking into consideration the relevant case law and

            the limited scope of review available in this forum, it is concluded that the award of the NFA

            was supported by a reasonable hypothesis and was neither arbitrary nor capricious” (id. at 4).

                     The Court denies the petition and, pursuant to CPLR 7511(e), confirms the awards.

            Petitioner’s arguments in support of vacatur are, essentially, that it disagrees with the lower

            arbitrator’s assessment of the evidence. Of course, mere disagreement is not a basis upon which

             650700/2022 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. PHYSICAL THERAPY OF NEW                  Page 3 of 5
             YORK P.C.
             Motion No. 001

                                                            3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 650700/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            this Court can vacate an arbitration award. Moreover, the lower arbitrator issued a well-reasoned

            decision that persuasively concluded that petitioner relied upon “uncorroborated” statements in

            support of its demand to disclaim coverage.

                   The Court also rejects petitioner’s assertion that this Court is bound, under the principle

            of collateral estoppel, by the decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction that found that the

            injured party was in the course of his employment. Respondent is not estopped by that decision

            as it was not a party to that arbitration or subsequent Supreme Court proceeding. The very fact

            that there are individual arbitrations for each of the medical providers seeking reimbursements in

            no-fault benefit disputes creates the possibility that there may be different outcomes. But this

            Court sees no reason to disturb the awards at issue here, which set forth a clear basis for their

            logical conclusions.

                   As respondent has prevailed in this proceeding it is entitled to legal fees (Am. Tr. Ins. Co.

            v Rutland Med. PC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00855, 1 [1st Dept 2024]). It demands $600 for the entire

            proceeding which, clearly, is a reasonable amount. It is actually a bargain.

                   Accordingly, it is hereby

                   ADJUDGED that the petition to vacate the arbitral award is denied and, pursuant to

            CPLR 7511(e), the Court confirms the award and the Clerk is hereby directed to directed to enter

            judgment in favor of respondent and against petitioner in the amount of $575.52 plus statutory

            interest from February 13, 2020 at the rate of 2%/month pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-3.9(a), plus

            Statutory attorney’s fees (20% of interest plus principal) pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(d), plus

            the Arbitration filing fee of $40 pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.5(s)(1); plus reasonable attorneys’

             650700/2022 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. PHYSICAL THERAPY OF NEW                 Page 4 of 5
             YORK P.C.
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 650700/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            fees of $600 pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) for opposing this Petition along with costs and

            disbursements upon presentation of proper papers therefor.

                    3/20/2024                                                         $SIG$
                      DATE                                                    ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:              X   CASE DISPOSED                NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                  □
                                         GRANTED             DENIED   GRANTED IN PART              X     OTHER

             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                 SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                  □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN   FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT              REFERENCE

             650700/2022 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. PHYSICAL THERAPY OF NEW                    Page 5 of 5
             YORK P.C.
             Motion No. 001

                                                           5 of 5
[* 5]