State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v New York City Tr. Auth.

[*1] State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v New York City Tr. Auth. 2009 NY Slip Op 50806(U) [23 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on April 24, 2009 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 24, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2008-262 Q C.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company a/s/o MARK WATSON and ULLANAIE WOODS, Appellant,

against

New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Lee A. Mayersohn, J.), entered October 24, 2007. The order denied the petition of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to vacate the arbitrator's awards in favor of the New York City Transit Authority dismissing the claims.

Order modified by adding thereto a provision confirming the arbitrator's awards; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) commenced compulsory arbitration proceedings against the New York City Transit Authority (Transit Authority), pursuant to Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) § 65-4.10 (see Insurance Law § 5105), seeking reimbursement for no-fault benefits paid on behalf of its subrogors. After the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator issued two awards in favor of the Transit Authority dismissing State Farm's claims. State Farm thereafter commenced this special proceeding to vacate the arbitrator's awards. The Civil Court denied the petition. The instant appeal by State Farm ensued.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the determination of the arbitrator, which denied State Farm's claims for assigned first-party no-fault benefits, was supported by a reasonable hypothesis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see e.g. Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 224 [1996]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 18 AD3d 762, 763 [2005]). Accordingly, the Civil Court properly denied the petition to vacate the arbitrator's awards. However, upon denying the petition, the court was required, pursuant to CPLR 7511 (e), to confirm the awards (see Matter of [*2]Exclusive Med. & Diagnostic v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 306 AD2d 476 [2003]).

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 24, 2009