Opinion
January 16, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not err in providing for an offset for workers' compensation payments against the arbitration award made under the supplementary uninsured coverage of the policy. The petitioner's entitlement to the supplementary coverage was solely a matter of contractual agreement between the policyholder and the insurer, and the policy herein provides for such an offset (see, Matter of Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Carleton, 145 A.D.2d 492; Fox v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 132 A.D.2d 17). The court correctly determined that the offset could not be permitted to reduce the award for the petitioner's pain and suffering below $10,000, which is the amount guaranteed for noneconomic loss under the mandatory uninsured motorist endorsement (see, Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]; Matter of Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Carleton, supra; Fox v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., supra). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.