49 N.Y.2d at 758 Standard for judicial review of compulsory arbitration awards6 citing cases
- Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 34547 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2023).unpublishedCo.], 49 NY2d 757, 758 [1980]; Mount St.
- Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Labunska, 132 A.D.3d 861 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).publishedCo.], 49 NY2d 757, 758 [1980]) and, to be upheld, the award “must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Motor Veh.
- In re the Arbitration between Philadelphia Ins. & Utica Nat'l Ins. Grp., 97 A.D.3d 1153 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2012).published Co.], 49 NY2d 757, 758 [1980]).
- Gongora v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 34 Misc. 3d 161 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010).publishedCo.], 49 NY2d 757, 758 [1980]; Matter of Utica Mut.
- In re the Arbitration between Utica Mut. Ins. & Selective Ins. of Am., 27 A.D.3d 990 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2006).publishedCo.], 49 NY2d 757, 758 [1980]) and “[t]o be upheld, an award . . . must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Motor Veh.
49 N.Y.2d at 757 “was obliged under the statute to accept the arbitral forum for the resolution of the claim against it”3 citing cases
- Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Excel Imaging, P.C., 879 F. Supp. 2d 243 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).publishedCo., 49 N.Y.2d 757 , 426 N.Y.S.2d 465 , 403 N.E.2d 170, 171 (1980) (stating that insurer “was obliged under the statute to accept the arbitral forum for the resolution of the claim against it”).
- Gov't Employees Ins. v. Five Boro Psychological Servs., P.C., 939 F. Supp. 2d 208 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).published
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Eclipse Med. Imaging, P.C., 744 F. Supp. 3d 208 (E.D.N.Y. 2024).published
49 N.Y.2d at 759 error on the part of the Appellate Division to set this award aside. It is not suggested that the award was not made in good faith or was without basis in the…2 citing cases
- Colon v. GEICO, 18 A.D.3d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2005).publishedCo.], 49 NY2d 757, 759 [1980]; Matter of Liberty Mut.
- Robert J. Lyeth v. Chrysler Corp., Robert Abrams, Attorney Gen. of the State of New York, Intervening, 929 F.2d 891 (2d Cir. 1991).published Here, we are unable, in the absence of a full record, to conclude “that there was not a rational basis for the award or that the award was not otherwise grounded in reason.” 6 Furstenberg, 49 N.Y.2d at 759, 426 N.Y.S.2d at 466, 403 N.E.2d…
403 N.E.2d at 171 stating that insurer “was obliged under the statute to accept the arbitral forum for the resolution of the claim against it1 citing case
- Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Excel Imaging, P.C., 879 F. Supp. 2d 243 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).published(stating that insurer “was obliged under the statute to accept the arbitral forum for the resolution of the claim against it)
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court confirming the arbitration award reinstated.
Recognizing that Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. was obliged under the statute to accept the arbitral forum for the resolution of the claim against it, we agree that the standard for judicial review of the award is more exacting than in voluntary arbitration (cf. Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. of Niagara Falls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493). We conclude, however, that it was[*759] error on the part of the Appellate Division to set this award aside.
It is not suggested that the award was not made in good faith or was without basis in the evidence submitted to the arbitrator. Nor is there any intimation of trespass of constitutional rights or violation of strong public policy. To the extent that it is pertinent it cannot be seriously contended that there was not a rational basis for the award or that the award was not otherwise grounded in reason. In these circumstances we are not prepared, in the disposition of this appeal, to hold as a matter of law that the award must be, set aside because it may be said that the Appellate Division in cases subsequently considered by it reached a different result with respect to the effectiveness of similarly defective notices of termination.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabbielli, Jones, Wachtleb, Fuchsbebg and Meyeb concur.
Order reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated in a memorandum.