Court Opinion

ID: 9954316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:11:14.303848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:01.863008
License: Public Domain

Country-Wide Ins. Co. v GW Acupuncture Servs. P.C.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30941(U)
                     March 19, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 650622/2021
                  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. 650622/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16                                                                                           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.          650622/2021
                COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE            N/A1
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
                GW ACUPUNCTURE SERVICES P.C., a/a/o Felix Popo,                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1-9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
            14
            were read on this motion to/for                                 VACATE - DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT/AWARD.

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

            confirms the awards (respondent did not formally cross-move to confirm the awards).

            Background

                      Petitioner seeks to vacate two arbitral awards arising out of a no-fault motor vehicle

            accident. Respondent was awarded $30 in reimbursement for medical bills it submitted to

            petitioner. It claims that the lower arbitrator erred in finding for respondent because petitioner

            had submitted proof that the policy was exhausted. Petitioner contends that it showed that its

            pay-outs reached the maximum threshold of the policy ($50,000).

            1
              Although this motion seems to have not been marked submitted, it should have been marked fully submitted on the
            initial return date of March 11, 2021. Despite the fact that this proceeding was only recently assigned to the
            undersigned, the Court apologizes, on behalf of the court system, for the lengthy delay in the resolution of this
            proceeding. More than three years is far too long.
                650622/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. GW ACUPUNCTURE SERVICES P.C.                          Page 1 of 4
                Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 650622/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                    In opposition, respondent contends that the award should be affirmed. It points out that

            the lower arbitrator gave petitioner a chance to prove that the policy was exhausted but found

            that petitioner simply failed to meet its burden. Respondent also seeks legal fees.

            Discussion

                    The lower arbitrator only granted respondent’s claimed reimbursements in part, in the

            amount of $30 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 3). With respect to the policy exhaustion claim, the lower

            arbitrator found that petitioner was collaterally estopped from arguing policy exhaustion (id. at

            5). She observed that petitioner had made the exact same argument in a related arbitration

            proceeding and was provided with an opportunity to supplement the record to show the relevant

            payouts but that petitioner did not submit anything (id. at 4-5). The arbitrator noted that

            “Respondent has not submitted any additional documentation in the matter before me to cause a

            different conclusion” (id. at 5).

                    The master arbitrator’s award observed that “As germane here, the arbitrator rejected

            [petitioner]’s exhaustion of policy contention, and found that an award should be entered for

            applicant in the amount of $30. Specifically, the arbitrator cited to two other arbitrators’ awards

            (AAA#17-18-1100-1645 and 17-17-1079-9082), plus an affirmance of the latter award by this

            master arbitrator, in rejecting said exhaustion defense. The arbitrator noted that [petitioner] was

            given an opportunity to provide an additional submission on the issue of the applicability of the

            prior arbitration awards, but did not so. Ultimately, after considering and crediting [petitioner]’s

            other defenses, an award in the amount of $30.00 was entered by the arbitrator” (NYSCEF Doc.

            No. 6 at 1).

                    He concluded that “notwithstanding [petitioner]’s failure to present evidence of policy

            exhaustion to the arbitrator - despite the arbitrator’s prior invitation to do so - I see no indication

             650622/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. GW ACUPUNCTURE SERVICES P.C.             Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                            2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 650622/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            that the arbitrator’s power was exceeded here such as would afford the basis to vacate an award”

            (id. at 2). In fact, the master arbitrator noted that “the evidence submitted presently by

            respondent in support of policy exhaustion – even if same could be considered herein (see, 11

            NYCRR 65-4.10 (a) (2) or (3)) - does not clearly demonstrate policy exhaustion” (id. at 3).

                      The Court sees no basis to disturb the subject arbitration awards. The lower arbitrator

            rationally concluded that petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to show that the policy

            was exhausted. It is not this Court’s role to second-guess an arbitrator’s determination under

            these circumstances. That petitioner apparently tried to supplement its submissions before the

            master arbitrator is of no moment and he properly rejected that untimely evidence which, in any

            event, apparently did not satisfy petitioner’s burden to show the policy was exhausted.

                      The Court observes that respondent demands legal fees for this proceeding in the amount

            of $1,190. Petitioner did not submit a reply to contest this amount which, in any event, is

            inherently reasonable. Of course, respondent is entitled to legal fees for this proceeding as the

            prevailing party (Am. Tr. Ins. Co. v Rutland Med. PC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00855, 1 [1st Dept

            2024]).

                      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 $30.00 plus statutory

            interest from 09/24/2018 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’

             650622/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. GW ACUPUNCTURE SERVICES P.C.           Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 650622/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            fees of $1,190 pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) for opposing this Petition along with costs

            and disbursements upon presentation of proper papers therefor.

                    3/19/2024                                                         $SIG$
                      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

             650622/2021 COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. GW ACUPUNCTURE SERVICES P.C.               Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]