Opinion
No. 450940/2023
01-08-2024
In the Matter of NEW YORK BLACK CAR OPERATORS' INJURY COMPENSATION FUND, INC., also known as NEW YORK BLACK CAR FUND, as subrogee of SAMUEL LECLER, Petitioner, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: HON. JOHN J. KELLEY Justice.
DECISION, ORDER+ JUDGEMENT ON MOTION
JOHN J. KELLEY, J.S.C.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 16, 17. 18 were read on this motion to/for CONFIRM/DISAPPROVE AWARD/REPORT.
New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. (NYBCOICF), also known as New York Black Car Fund, petitions pursuant to CPLR 7510 to confirm an arbitration award dated November 30, 2022, made by an arbitrator acting under the auspices of Arbitration Forums, Inc. (AFI), and pursuant to CPLR 7514 to direct the entry of judgment thereon. The respondent, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), opposes the petition. The petition is granted, the award rendered under AFI Docket No. 1068-12678-21-00 is confirmed, and NYBCOICF is entitled to enter a money judgment against State Farm in the principal sum of $50,000.00, plus statutory interest from November 30, 2022.
NYBCOICF was the insurer of a motor vehicle owned and operated by Samuel Lecler, who operated the vehicle in his capacity as an independent contractor either for Uber or another ride-share company that was a member of NYBCOICF. State Farm was the insurer of a motor vehicle owned by Ricardos Enterprise and operated by Kareem Greene. On January 31,2017, Lecler was stopped on Front Street, five feet south of its intersection with Fulton Street in Brooklyn, New York, when his vehicle was struck in the rear by the vehicle operated by Greene. According to Greene, Lecler stopped short, causing him to strike Leder's vehicle in the rear. Lecler thereafter made a claim upon his insurer, NYBCOICF, for Workers' Compensation benefits in lieu of first-party no-fault benefits (see A.I. Transp. v New York State Ins. Fund, 301 A.D.2d 380, 380 [1st Dept 2003]; Arvatz v Empire Mut. Ins. Co., 171 A.D.2d 262, 268 [1st Dept 1991]; Insurance Law §§ 5102 [a], [b]; 5103 [a]; Workers' Compensation Law § 2[3]). NYBCOICF paid claims totaling $104,334.86 on Leder's behalf.
Inasmuch as the vehicle that NYBCOICF had insured and the vehicle that State Farm had insured were both "motor vehicle[s] used principally for the transportation of persons or property for hire" (Insurance Law § 5105[a]), NYBCOICF was entitled to seek a personal injury protection (PIP) or Workers' Compensation "loss transfer' from State Farm to reimburse it for the benefits that it had paid out to Lecler (see A.I. Transp. v New Yprk State Ins. Fund, 301 A.D.2d at 380). To obtain this loss transfer, NYBCOICF was required to establish that Greene, as the operator of the vehicle insured by State Farm, was at fault in the happening of the accident. Insurance Law § 5105(b) provides that, where an insurer seeks to recover first-party benefits/PIP or Workers' Compensation loss transfer from the "insurer of any other covered person" on the ground that the other covered person was at fault in the happening of the accident, "[t]he sole remedy . . . shall be the submission of the controversy to mandatory arbitration pursuant to procedures promulgated or approved by the superintendent'' of the New York State Department of Financial Services. Pursuant to those regulations, AFI has been designated as the exclusive forum for resolution of no-fault related arbitration matters (see 11 NYCRR 65.10).
On November 23, 2021, NYBCOICF demanded inter-insurer arbitration with State Farm before AFI, and thus filed a PIP loss-transfer arbitration claim with AFI. On March 15, 2022, State Farm requested and was granted a deferment of the arbitration hearing on the ground that there was action pending in the Supreme Court, Kings County, under index number 512049/2017 (the Kings County action), pursuant to which Lecler sought to recover for noneconomic loss from Ricardos Enterprise and Greene. Thereafter, State Farm made a second request for a deferment, but the request was denied because it was not submitted correctly. On July 21, 2022, a jury in the Kings County action determined that Lecler was 70% at fault in the happening of the accident, and that Greene was 30% at fault in the happening of the accident. On September 16, 2022, Lecler moved to set aside the verdict based on erroneous and prejudicial evidentiary rulings, and as contrary to the weight of the evidence. In an order dated November 16, 2022 and entered January 4, 2023, the court (Martin, J.) denied the motion in its entirety. No party to that action, however, has yet entered judgment on the verdict.
On November 30, 2022, and thus several months after the jury rendered its verdict in the Kings County action, an arbitrator acting under the auspices of AFI found Leder's description of the accident to be credible, found in favor of NYBCOICF, and concluded that Greene was 100% at fault in the happening of the subject accident. She thus determined that State Farm was obligated to pay NYBCOICF the maximum recovery amount of $50,000.00 in first-party benefits for basic economic loss. On April 6, 2023, NYBCOICF commenced this proceeding to confirm the award.
Pursuant to CPLR 7510, the court "shall confirm an [arbitration] award upon application of a party made within one year after its delivery to him [or her] unless the award is vacated or modified upon a ground specified in section 7511The grounds specified in CPLR 7511 are exclusive (see Bernstein Family Ltd. Partnership v Sovereign Partners, L.P., 66 A.D.3d 201 [1st Dept 2009]) and it is a "well-established rule that an arbitrator's rulings, unlike a trial court's, are largely unreviewable" (Matter of Falzone v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 15 N.Y.3d 530, 534 [2013]). The instant proceeding to confirm the arbitration award was timely commenced on April 6, 2023 (see CPLR 304[a]). NYBCOICF contends that the award was proper in all respects and that no grounds exist for modification or vacatur. State Farm, however, contends that the award was improper because the apportionment of liability had been determined by a jury prior to the arbitration award, and that the petition thus should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), based on the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.
The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are applicable to arbitration awards and proceedings, including those rendered in disputes over no-fault benefits, and will bar relitigation of the same claim or issue in court (see Matter of Ranni [Ross], 58 N.Y.2d 715, 717 [1982]; Matter of American Ins. Co. [Messinger-Aetna Cas & Sur. Co.], 43 N.Y.2d 184, 189-190 [1977]; Monroe v Providence Washington Ins. Co., 126 A.D.2d 929 [3d Dept 1987]). Similarly, under appropriate circumstances, res judicata or collateral estoppel may bar the arbitration of a claim that has been litigated in court (see Matter of Shapiro v Hayes, 2016 NY Slip Op 30643[U], *7-8, 2016 NY Mise LEXIS 1348, *11-12 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County, Apr. 13, 2016]). Nonetheless, a "'final judgment on the merits'" is required to assert either doctrine (Kilduff v Donna Oil Corp., 74 A.D.2d 562, 563 [2d Dept 1980], quoting Siegel, New York Practice, § 444, p 589; see Allmed Mdse. & Trading, Inc. v Geico, 2023 NY Mise LEXIS 19623, *2 [Sup Ct, Queens County, Jul, 14, 2023]; see also Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v Trans Caribbean Airways, Inc., 29 A.D.2d 379, 381-382 [1st Dept 1968], aff'd 23 N.Y.2d 709 [1968]; 5 Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice para. 5011.10 at p. 50-78.). In other words, it is the judgment in the prior action that acts as a bar, since "'neither the verdict of a jury nor the findings of a court in a prior action upon the precise point involved in a subsequent action . . . constitute a bar, unless followed by a judgment based thereon, or into which the verdict or findings entered"' (Church v New York State Thruway Auth., 16 A.D.3d 808, 810 [3d Dept 2005], quoting Rudd v Cornell. 171 NY 114, 128-129 [1902]; see Peterson v Forkey, 50 A.D.2d 774, 774-775 [1st Dept 1975]; see also Matter of Timperio v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp., 203 A.D.3d 179, 184 [3d Dept 2022]). "Though a prior verdict appears to be decisive of precise issues raised in a later action, it cannot, absent entry of judgment, act as a bar" (Peterson v Forkey, 50 A.D.2d at 775; see Church v New York State Thruway Auth., 16 A.D.3d at 810 ["[w]hen no order or final judgment has been entered on a verdict or decision . . . collateral estoppel is inapplicable"]; Wiederhorn v Karlan, 267 A.D. 163, 164 [1st Dept 1943]).
Here, although Ricardos Enterprise and Greene did obtain a jury verdict finding them to be only 30% at fault in the happening of the subject accident, and that verdict was rendered several months prior to the award rendered by the arbitrator, a final judgment had not been entered on that verdict at the time that the arbitrator made the subject award against State Farm, in its capacity as the insurer of Ricardos Enterprise. In fact, a final judgment had yet to be entered at the time that NYBCOICF commenced this proceeding, and a final judgment has still yet to be entered. Thus, neither the doctrine of res judicata nor the doctrine of collateral estoppel can be asserted to bar the validity of the arbitration award rendered in favor of NYBCOICF. Hence, the court concludes that NYBCOICF is entitled both to the confirmation of the award and to the entry of a money judgment in the sum of $50,000.00. The money judgment must bear interest from the date of the arbitration award, that is, from November 30, 2022 (see CPLR 5002; Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Niagara, Wheatfield. Lewiston & Cambria v Niagara-Wheatfield Teachers Assn., 46 N.Y.2d 553, 558 [1979]; Dermigny v Harper, 127 A.D.3d 685, 686 [2d Dept 2015]; Matter of Levin & Glasser, P.C. v Kenmore Prop., LLC, 70 A.D.3d 443, 446 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of Gruberg v Cortell Group, Inc.. 143 A.D.2d 39, 39 [1st Dept 1988]).
Accordingly, it is
ADJUDGED that the petition is granted, and the arbitration award rendered in the matter entitled Matter of New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc., also known as New York Black Car Fund v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Arbitration Forums, Inc., Docket Number 1068-12678-21-00, dated November 30, 2022, be, and hereby is, confirmed; and it is further, ORDERED that the Clerk of the court shall enter a money judgment in favor of Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc., also known as New York Black Car Fund, and against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, in the principal sum of $50,000.00, plus statutory interest at 9% per annum from November 30, 2022.
This constitutes the Decision, Order, and Judgment of the court.