Key Takeaway
Appeals of trial de novo rulings and Article 75 decisions in NY no-fault insurance arbitration cases, including master arbitration brief requirements and administrative remedies.
This article is part of our ongoing arbitrations coverage, with 114 published articles analyzing arbitrations issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
AutoOne Ins. Co. v Eastern Is. Med. Care, P.C., 2016 NY Slip Op 05354 (2d Dept. 2016)
This case is interesting on a few levels since it addresses what could be categorized as unresolved issues involving provisions of the no-fault law that have not had much exercise in recent years. Ironically, since the nature of the practice is more arbitration based, I am now more involved with appeals of trial de novo rulings and Article 75 rulings at the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division. The nice part about this trend is that the carrier gets to chose the venue and I am not stuck in Civil Court. This means the papers are read, “the briefing schedule” does not exist and real orders are generated. Civility in practice.
This case it upon the issue of what happens when you file a master arbitration brief and chose not submit one. Why would this happen? Simply put, the award is in excess of $5,000 and there is no way to vacate the award through the arbitration system. The question asked is why bother submitting a brief. After this case, I have taken the position to put in a pro forma brief, whatever that is. The Supreme Court did not rule on this issue but it was a large part of Defendant’s argument for dismissing the declaratory judgment action/trial de novo and seeking confirmation of the master arbitral award.
(1) The Court correctly held that: “the insurance regulations specifically provide that a master arbitration will proceed even if a party fails to appear or submit materials and that the master arbitrator must make a determination on the merits, not in favor of an appearing party solely on the default of the other party (see 11 NYCRR 65-4.10). Thus, the plaintiff’s failure to file a brief with the master arbitrator was not determinative of whether it satisfied a condition precedent or exhausted its administrative remedies”
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Secondly, how much time does an insurance carrier have to commence a trial de novo following a master arbitration award? Supreme Court said that one only has 35-days to commence a trial de novo, relying on the uniform court rule. The Court in applying 65-4.10(h)(2) said that the 90-day period to vacate an arbitration award would apply to this situation.
(2) “As this arbitration dispute was originally submitted to the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter AAA) and was not court-ordered, the 35-day timetable applied by the court pursuant to 28 NYCRR 28.12 was not applicable (see 22 NYCRR 28.2). Instead, the plaintiff had 90 days from the date the master arbitrator’s award was mailed to it to commence this action (_see_Insurance Law § 5106; CPLR 7511; 11 NYCRR 65-4.10; see also Matter of Slater v Eagle Ins. Co., 294 AD2d at 369), and the plaintiff did so. Thus, the court erred in granting the defendant’s cross motion to confirm the award of the master arbitrator on the ground that this action was not timely commenced and in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(b) to dismiss the third affirmative defense, which alleged that the action was not timely commenced.”
Now the case is remanded for a determination in the merits of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Related Articles
- A default that is more than meets the eyes
- The failure to serve a demand for master arbitral review in the manner set forth in the regulations
- Good luck trying to vacate a no-fault arbitration award pursuant to Article 75
- Trial De Novo granted and declaration of non-coverage granted
- Denial of Claims
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2016 post, New York’s no-fault arbitration procedures and trial de novo provisions under 11 NYCRR 65-4 and Insurance Law § 5106 may have been subject to regulatory amendments or procedural modifications. The arbitration fee schedules, master arbitration filing requirements, and specific procedural steps for exhausting administrative remedies should be verified against current regulations, as these provisions have been periodically updated by the Department of Financial Services.
Related: What “de novo” means in New York — trial de novo and de novo review, explained.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
No-Fault Arbitrations in New York
No-fault arbitration is the primary forum for resolving disputes between medical providers and insurers over claim denials. The arbitration process has its own procedural rules, evidentiary standards, and appeal mechanisms — including master arbitration and Article 75 judicial review. Understanding arbitration practice is essential for any attorney handling no-fault claims. These articles cover arbitration procedures, hearing strategies, award enforcement, and the grounds for challenging arbitration outcomes in court.
114 published articles in Arbitrations
Keep Reading
More Arbitrations Analysis
Forced Arbitration: Challenges in Discrimination Claims
Explores forced arbitration in discrimination claims, examining laws with the 2021 EFAA, impacting employee rights and employer policies.
Feb 11, 2025
Election to arbitrate
New York no-fault insurance arbitration ruling: once a provider elects arbitration for accident claims, they cannot switch forums even against different carriers.
Apr 27, 2020
Civil Court properly granted motion to stay when DJ action is pending
Civil Court properly grants stay motion when declaratory judgment action pending - avoiding inconsistent adjudications in no-fault insurance cases.
Dec 8, 2013
Gary T day
Four 2019 Article 75 decisions: Bay Needle's affirmed vacatur, limits on master review, and links to Jason's McMahon and Medco Tech appeal notes.
Oct 17, 2019
Attorneys fees on a DJ
Analysis of attorney fee recovery in New York declaratory judgment actions, examining when medical providers and insureds can recover legal costs in no-fault insurance disputes.
Dec 17, 2017
Unitrin has been back-doored into the Second Department
Global Liberty v Professional Chiropractic Care: Jason’s 2016 First Department appeal over IME denial errors, master arbitration and Article 75 review.
May 31, 2016Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a arbitrations matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
