State Farm Ins. Co. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

[*1] State Farm Ins. Co. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. 2008 NY Slip Op 50282(U) [18 Misc 3d 137(A)] Decided on February 6, 2008 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 6, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P. and RIOS, J.
2007-325 Q C

State Farm Insurance Company a/s/o WILLIAM EASTMAN, Appellant,

against

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Bernice Daun Siegal, J.), entered November 16, 2006. The judgment denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award.

Judgment modified by adding thereto a provision confirming the arbitration award; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

In this proceeding, petitioner seeks to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitrator found for respondent, determining that the statute of limitations bars petitioner's claim. The court below held that there were no grounds shown to vacate the arbitration award and denied the petition. The instant appeal by petitioner ensued.

Respondent properly asserted its statute of limitations defense at arbitration (CPLR 7502 [b]; see Matter of Motor Vehicle Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214 [1996]). While petitioner argues that the arbitration award should have been vacated because it was "arbitrary and capricious," such standard for judicial review of an arbitration award applies where the arbitration is compulsory (Matter of Motor Vehicle Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d at 223). However, where, as here, "the arbitration is pursuant to the voluntary agreement of the parties, in the absence of proof of fraud, corruption, or other misconduct, the arbitrator's determination on issues of law, such as the application of the Statute of Limitations, as well as fact, is conclusive" (id.; see CPLR 7502 [b]). Applying the latter standard (see CPLR [*2]7511 [b]), we find no basis to vacate the award. However, upon denying the petition to vacate the award, the court below was required, pursuant to CPLR 7511 (e), to confirm the award (see Matter of Exclusive Med. & Diagnostic v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 306 AD2d 476 [2003]).

Weston Patterson, J.P. and Rios, J., concur.
Decision Date: February 06, 2008