Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v Professional Chiropractic Care, P.C., 2016 NY Slip Op 04156 (1st Dept. 2016) Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson,
In the matter of Accelerated DME Recovery, INC. a/a/o Ana Pleitz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins Co.. Index # 706132/15 (Sup. Ct. Queens Co. 2015)(Modica,
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Phelps Memorial Hospital, 2013 NY Slip Op 33590(U)(Sup. Ct. Nassau Co. 2013) “This Court conducted a non-jury trial on matter on November 7,
Allstate Ins. Co. v Natural Healing Acupuncture, P.C., 2013 NY Slip Op 50645(U)(Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2013) “The arbitrator failed to mention, much less follow the Appellate
Matter of Matter of Philadelphia Ins. Co. (Utica Natl. Ins. Group), 2012 NY Slip Op 05470 (4th Dept. 2012) This is a coverage case with a
Siegel v Landy, 2012 NY Slip Op 03625 (2d Dept. 2012) There is a right to be able to present evidence at an arbitration… “However, as
Ava Acupuncture, P.C. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2012 NY Slip Op 50234(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2012) “In this case, while the delay was lengthy, plaintiff
Matter of Mvaic v Interboro Med. Care & Diagnostic PC, 2010 NY Slip Op 04522 (1st Dept. 2010) “MVAIC defended the arbitration on the ground that
Matter of Chin v State Farm Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 04186 (2d Dept. 2010) “Consistent with the public policy in favor of arbitration, the
Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. v United Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., 2010 NY Slip Op 03944 (2d Dept. 2010) “The test for ordering disclosure to aid in
In UM and SUM arbitration, it has been held that the failure to stay the arbitration within 20-days of the service of an intent to arbitrate
The one thing that we can all say about Second Department practice, whether it be at the Appellate Term or the Appellate Division, is that the
Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v Seaport Orthopedic Assn. 2009 NY Slip Op 31915(U)(Sup Ct NY Co. 2009) In this case, a master arbitrator failed
State Farm v. Stack 2008 NY Slip Op 07651 (2d Dept. 2008) “A no-fault arbitration tribunal twice concluded that the defendant, James Stack, was entitled to
