Opinion
No. 2020-06940 Index No. 54454/20
04-12-2023
Chantel O'Shea, etc., appellant, v. Allstate Insurance Company, respondent.
Gruenberg Kelly Della, Ronkonkoma, NY (Zachary M. Beriloff of counsel), for appellant. Karen L. Lawrence (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, NY [Joel A. Sweetbaum], of counsel), for respondent.
Gruenberg Kelly Della, Ronkonkoma, NY (Zachary M. Beriloff of counsel), for appellant.
Karen L. Lawrence (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, NY [Joel A. Sweetbaum], of counsel), for respondent.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, PAUL WOOTEN, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated February 26, 2020, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (George Nolan, J.), dated September 2, 2020. The order denied the petition to vacate the arbitration award and confirmed the arbitration award.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated February 26, 2020, which denied her claim for supplementary underinsured motorist (hereinafter SUM) benefits. The Supreme Court denied the petition and confirmed the arbitration award. The petitioner appeals.
"Since a claim by an insured against an insurance carrier under a SUM endorsement is subject to compulsory arbitration, the arbitrator's award is subject to closer judicial scrutiny than it would receive had the arbitration been conducted pursuant to a voluntary agreement between the parties" (Matter of Merchant v State Farm Ins. Co.-SUM, 181 A.D.3d 803, 803; see Matter of Deluca v Arch Ins. Group, 109 A.D.3d 912, 913). "To be upheld, an award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious" (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 214, 223; see Matter of Wesco Ins. Co. v GEICO Indem. Co., 211 A.D.3d 738, 739; Matter of Merchant v State Farm Ins. Co.-SUM, 181 A.D.3d at 803). Here, the determination of the arbitrator had evidentiary support and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of O'Neill v GEICO Ins. Co., 162 A.D.3d 776, 778; Matter of Deluca v Arch Ins. Group, 109 A.D.3d at 913).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition to vacate the arbitration award and confirmed the arbitration award.
IANNACCI, J.P., RIVERA, WOOTEN and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.