Randall Ehrlich, M.D., P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.

Annotate this Case
[*1] Randall Ehrlich, M.D., P.C. v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. 2016 NY Slip Op 51708(U) Decided on November 25, 2016 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 25, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ.
2015-1372 S C

Randall Ehrlich, M.D., P.C., as Assignee of Cheradi Diaz, Respondent,

against

Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (Linda J. Kevins, J.), dated April 22, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted a petition to vacate a master arbitrator's award, reinstated the arbitrator's award and confirmed that award, and denied so much of a cross petition as sought to confirm the master arbitrator's award.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award is denied and so much of the cross petition as sought to confirm the master arbitrator's award is granted.

For the reasons stated in Golden Earth Chiropractic & Acupuncture, PLLC, as Assignee of Segundo Campoverde v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of New York (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2015-1370 S C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, the petition to vacate the master arbitrator's award is denied and so much of the cross petition as sought to confirm the master arbitrator's award is granted.

We incidentally note that a proceeding to confirm or vacate an arbitration award is a special proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 4, and must terminate in a judgment, rather than an order (see CPLR 411).

Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: November 25, 2016

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.