Court Opinion

ID: 9954324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:11:25.430628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:03.508325
License: Public Domain

American Tr. Ins. Co. v Orthopro Servs., Inc.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30911(U)
                     March 19, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 650836/2022
                  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.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 650836/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          650836/2022
                AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE        04/04/20221
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
                ORTHOPRO SERVICES, INC. A/A/O GULMIRA
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
                JOLDYBAYEVA,
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
            11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
            were read on this motion to/for                                      CONFIRM/DISAPPROVE AWARD/REPORT                   .

                      The cross-petition by respondent to confirm the underlying arbitration awards is granted.

            Background

                      Petitioner brings this proceeding to vacate a lower arbitrator’s award and a master

            arbitration award on the ground that these awards incorrectly found that petitioner had insured

            the subject vehicle. It alleges that the insured (a livery) switched insurers and on the first day of

            the new policy, November 28, 2017, the vehicle was in an accident. Petitioner alleges that the

            documentary proof it submitted shows that it did not insure the subject vehicle on the day of the

            accident and so it was entitled to disclaim coverage.

                      Respondent cross-moves to confirm the award and argues that the lower arbitrator

            properly relied upon an affidavit from petitioner which stated that the policy was cancelled on

            1
             Although this proceeding was only transferred to the undersigned in the last few days, the Court recognizes that it
            has been pending for some time before different judges. The Court apologizes for the lengthy delay in the resolution
            of this proceeding.
                650836/2022 AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ORTHOPRO SERVICES, INC.                           Page 1 of 4
                A/A/O GULMIRA JOLDYBAYEVA
                Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 650836/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            November 28, 2019 (petitioner says this was a scrivener’s error). It claims that the master

            arbitrator then properly upheld the award and noted that the decision did not turn solely on the

            apparent scrivener’s error in the affidavit from petitioner. Respondent emphasizes that this

            Court’s role when evaluating this proceeding is only whether the awards were rational; it points

            out that de novo review is not permissible here. It also demands legal fees incurred in

            connection with this proceeding.

                    Petitioner did not submit a reply.

            Discussion

                    The Court’s analysis begins with the arbitrators’ awards. The lower arbitrator noted that

            “I find that [petitioner] failed to sufficiently demonstrate that [petitioner] did not insure the

            vehicle at issue on the date of the accident. [Petitioner]'s affidavit conceded that [Petitioner]

            provided coverage for the period up until March 1, 2018 and that the coverage was not canceled

            by the insured until November 28, 2019, two years after the motor vehicle accident at issue. It is

            unclear if [Petitioner]'s underwriter made an error in his affidavit or that the coverage was not

            canceled until November 28, 2019 and I decline to speculate. It was [Petitioner]'s burden to

            establish its defense and I find that the DMV search, alone, was insufficient to establish lack of

            coverage” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 4 at 3). The lower arbitrator awarded respondent $1279.58 (id.).

                    The Master Arbitrator then confirmed the award. He added that “Contrary to the view

            espoused by Appellant’s counsel, the Award did not turn solely on an asserted scrivener’s error

            in an affidavit authored by the carrier’s Director of Underwriting, but also rested upon the Police

            Accident Report which identified American Transit Insurance Company (hereinafter ATIC) as

            the insurer of the host vehicle on the date of loss. Notably, the attending police officer recorded

             650836/2022 AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ORTHOPRO SERVICES, INC.              Page 2 of 4
             A/A/O GULMIRA JOLDYBAYEVA
             Motion No. 001

                                                            2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                               INDEX NO. 650836/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20                                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            the insurance code number assigned to ATIC in the corresponding blank on the subject report”

            (id. at 13 of 16).

                      The Court sees no basis to disturb these awards. Petitioner’s arguments amount to a

            disagreement with the awards and that is not a basis to disturb an arbitration award. 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 fact is that the lower arbitrator did not embrace petitioner’s argument that there was a

            scrivener’s error regarding the cancellation date of the policy and the master arbitrator noted that

            there were other bases to conclude that the policy was not yet cancelled on the date of the

            accident. It is not this Court’s role to second guess an arbitration award, especially where the

            arbitrator was required to assess an argument from petitioner that an affidavit it submitted did not

            say what it clearly said. 2 In other words, it was the arbitrator’s role to determine how to evaluate

            the subject affidavit, whether the purported scrivener’s error should be overlooked and the

            overall evidence.

                      The Court observes that because petitioner did not submit a reply, respondent’s request

            for legal fees is granted without opposition.

                      Accordingly, it is hereby

            2
             To the extent that petitioner demands a de novo review, that claim is without merit as the amount awarded here did
            not meet that threshold (see Insurance Law § 5106[c]).
                650836/2022 AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ORTHOPRO SERVICES, INC.                     Page 3 of 4
                A/A/O GULMIRA JOLDYBAYEVA
                Motion No. 001

                                                                 3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 650836/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                    ADJUDGED that the cross-petition to confirm the underlying arbitration awards is

            granted and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of respondent and against petitioner

            in the amount of $1279.58 plus statutory interest from the date of the arbitration award, plus the

            master arbitrator’s fee of $185.25 as well as reasonable legal fees in the amount of $927.50 and

            costs and disbursements, all upon presentation of proper papers therefor.

                    (The Court declines to award “prospective Marshall’s [sic] fees” as requested by

            respondent).

                   3/19/2024                                                           $SIG$
                      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

             650836/2022 AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY vs. ORTHOPRO SERVICES, INC.                 Page 4 of 4
             A/A/O GULMIRA JOLDYBAYEVA
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]