Key Takeaway
First Department appeal challenging rocket docket preclusion in no-fault case, examining law office failure standards and interest of justice review procedures.
This article is part of our ongoing article 75 coverage, with 50 published articles analyzing article 75 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.
Global Liberty v. Coastal Anesthesia
Another attempt is being made to demonstrate that “rocket docket” preclusion is subject to an interest of justice review and that CPLR 2005 applies in the correct situation.
Procedurally, the submissions were 5-days late and a colorable showing of law office failure was presented in the moving papers. In my eyes, if this case does not call for the tempering of a hard-line standard, you might as well throw the baby out with the bath water.
The lower arbitrator – a rocket docket enthusiast – precluded the submissions. I have usually kept my views of the rocket docket club of arbitrators off this blog, and I will continue that policy. Opportunely, the regulation really needs to be amended to incorporate a prejudice or substantial justice standard prior to disallowing a party the opportunity to plead its case. Parenthetically, Countriwide would not get much sympathy under my proposed rule change since mercy is not granted towards the insolent few.
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.
The case is up for submission on 11/25/16. If we win, then some sanity will reign. Should we lose, then we may be looking to DFS to amend the rule, lest DFS looks like they just do not get it.
My prediction. Assuming the Court follows Matter of Unitrin Advantage Ins. Co. Kemper A. Unitrin Bus. v Professional Health Radiology, 2016 NY Slip Op 06767 (1st Dept. 2016), which held that consideration of evidence was not proper:”based on the multiple errors committed by Unitrin, it failed to establish inadvertent law office error, or that the cases should be remanded, in the interest of justice, for a new arbitration hearing”, the appeal has a good shot at success.
Just note the one mistake that was made on Heatlhmakers, i.e., the failure to include an explanation for the slightly late evidence, was herein not repeated. Fool me once… you know the bit. We cannot say the same about “the partner affirmation”
Related Articles
- Understanding complex default situations in NY arbitration cases
- How detailed law office failure excuses are required to open default judgments
- Master arbitrator review standards and when decisions can be vacated
- Service requirements for master arbitral review under NY regulations
- When generalized law office failure averments are sufficient to open defaults
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
Article 75 Proceedings: Judicial Review of Arbitration
CPLR Article 75 governs the judicial review of arbitration awards in New York. In no-fault practice, Article 75 petitions are the mechanism for challenging master arbitration awards — whether on grounds of irrationality, excess of power, or procedural irregularity. The standards for vacating or confirming arbitration awards are narrow but important. These articles analyze Article 75 jurisprudence and the practical considerations involved in seeking judicial review of no-fault arbitration outcomes.
50 published articles in Article 75
Keep Reading
More Article 75 Analysis
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
The good hands people at it again
Allstate loses no-fault arbitration appeal after claimant attended 8 IMEs - court finds insurer acted in bad faith with adversarial treatment of injured party
Oct 17, 2019
Another Article 75 needed to be taken against AAA
Long Island attorney discusses Article 75 petition success against AAA master arbitrator decision in IME no-show case, highlighting systemic issues in no-fault arbitration.
Sep 16, 2016
Great Wall is binding precedent on American Arbitration Association
Court rules American Arbitration Association arbitrator failed to follow binding Great Wall precedent on acupuncture fee schedules in no-fault insurance dispute.
Apr 30, 2013
EBT in aid of arbitration? No dice.
NY court denies EBT in aid of arbitration, ruling disclosure must be "absolutely necessary" not merely convenient for no-fault insurance disputes.
May 7, 2010
Another arbitration only rule bites the dust
Global Liberty v Medco Tech: Jason’s 2019 appeal on post-surgical equipment causation, the peer-review record and why the court ordered a new hearing.
Mar 23, 2019Was 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 article 75 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.
