

Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C. (2016 NY Slip Op 04156)





Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C.


2016 NY Slip Op 04156


Decided on May 31, 2016


Appellate Division, First Department


Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.


This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.



Decided on May 31, 2016

Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter, Kapnick, JJ.


1341N 261079/14

[*1] In re Global Liberty Insurance Co., Petitioner-Appellant,
vProfessional Chiropractic Care, P.C., etc., Respondent-Respondent.


The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Jason Tenenbaum of counsel), for appellant.
The Law Office of Sukhibir Singh, Richmond Hill (Ralph C. Caio of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered July 10, 2015, which denied the petition to vacate a master arbitrator's award, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, and the award vacated. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
The Master Arbitrator's award was arbitrary because it irrationally ignored the law, which petitioner insurer had presented to the Master Arbitrator, that the no-fault policy issued by petitioner was void ab initio due to respondent's assignor's failure to attend duly scheduled independent medical exams (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2013]). The alleged error in petitioner's denial of claim form is of "no moment" (Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. v Bayshore Physical Therapy, PLLC, 82 AD3d 559, 560 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 705 [2011]), and was not a sufficient or rational basis for the award (see Auto One Ins. Co. v Hillside Chiropractic, P.C., 126 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2015], citing Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 211 [1981]).
Respondent waived its objections regarding improper service of the petition, since it never moved to dismiss the petition on those grounds (see CPLR 3211[e]; B.N. Realty Assoc. v Lichtenstein, 21 AD3d 793, 796 [1st Dept 2005]; Matter of Resnick v Town of Canaan, 38 AD3d 949, 951 [3d Dept 2007]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: MAY 31, 2016
CLERK


