Key Takeaway
First Department grants Global Liberty’s Article 75 petition in Top Q., applying IME no-show precedent. Jason’s 2019 note records his reaction to the appeal.
This article is part of our ongoing article 75 coverage, with 180 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.
Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Top Q. Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06445 (1st Dept. 2019)
I know AAA will not like this decision. But as we told the master arbitrator in our brief, this is the law. The master refused to listen.
The above thought actually traces back to a recent snarky post on the No-fault group on Facebook One poster I think hailed a AAA decision about the inability to delay for recorded statements as gospel. Another poster found a Civil Court case saying the same thing. I then found an App Term case from 12 years prior that was contrary. What is my point? Do not trust AAA (or the App. Term) on the law if you think you are right.
Truth be told, the App. Div First Department will grant you leave if you can show them that an App Term decision is inconsistent with precedent, common sense or of significant import. While I do not agree with every decision from that Court, you know that your applications are getting attention at that tribunal. Again, the First Department only hears cases from two counties and has significant resources to give cases the attention they deserve.
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 Second Department, however, is a lot more sparring with their grants of leave. They will only grant leave if the issue is hot button and involves millions of dollars, if not addressed. For proof, ask yourself why that court heard a pre-LMK interest case and will hear the Alleviation case. That said, leave will almost never be granted in mundane cases.
In fact, if you were to track First and Second Department CPL 440 leave applications, you would see the same trend. I do not blame the Second Department for its stinginess in granting leave application, despite being the victim of perfunctory leave denials. That Court is the busiest appellate court in the country.
Time for a Fifth Appellate Division anyone?
Historical note (September 2026): this note concerns Article 75 review of a no-fault arbitration award as decided in 2019. The master-arbitrator standard is collected in master arbitrator review standards; the 2024–2025 regulation changes on forced arbitration are in priority of payment and the no-force-arbitration rule.
The reported decision and its earlier authority
The September 3, 2019 decision was issued by the Appellate Division, First Department, not the Court of Appeals. Jason’s preceding observations about leave applications are his 2019 commentary.
Top Q. cites Professional Chiropractic Care, Jason’s 2016 IME appeal. That earlier note traces the denial-form dispute through the Bronx petition and appellate reversal.
As to this case:
“Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered August 31, 2018, which denied the petition to vacate a master arbitrator’s award, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition granted.
The master arbitrator’s award was arbitrary because it irrationally ignored the controlling law that the no-fault policy issued by petitioner was void ab initio due to respondent’s assignor’s failure to attend duly scheduled independent medical exams (see Hereford Ins. Co. v Lida’s Med. Supply, Inc., 161 AD3d 442, 443 ; Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C., 139 AD3d 645, 646 ; American Tr. Ins. Co. v Lucas, 111 AD3d 423, 424 ).”
Last reviewed: September 2026 — deciding court corrected in the description and the cited 2016 case history linked. Original commentary and official citation preserved.
Connect to the Encyclopedia
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.
180 published articles in Article 75
Keep Reading
More Article 75 Analysis
Simple addition is insufficient
Jodi Jacobs's 2021 mixed appeal: four claims dismissed, one fee balance unresolved, and why the schedule alone did not prove correct code use.
May 22, 2021
NF-3 is the operative document
Unitrin Direct v Beckles: the NF-3, timely IME requests and two missed examinations. Distinguish the request deadline from the examination date.
Mar 22, 2021
Non-compulsory arbitration award vacated
Court vacates arbitration award when plaintiff denied basic procedural rights including notice, opportunity to be heard, and to present evidence under CPLR Article 75.
May 10, 2012
IME Medical Malpractice Claims in New York: When Doctors Cross the Line
Court ruling shows IME doctors can face malpractice liability when they depart from accepted medical practice during examinations, requiring proper evidence of standard procedures.
Jun 8, 2019
IME/EUO no-show substantiated (First Department).
Urban Well and Metro 8 accepted different witnesses' proof of missed IMEs and EUOs. Compare the 2016 decisions with later EUO affirmation evidence.
Jun 20, 2016
IME no-show (First Department)
First Department ruling establishes key standards for proving IME no-shows in no-fault cases, requiring proper notice and competent evidence of nonappearance.
Jul 22, 2014Was 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.
