Mta Bus Co. v. Responsive Auto Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 January 2020
• Docket Number: Index 451207/18,10838
• Citation: 179 A.D.3d 550,114 N.Y.S.3d 640 (Mem)
• Parties: In re MTA BUS COMPANY, Petitioner–Respondent, v. RESPONSIVE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

179 A.D.3d 550
114 N.Y.S.3d 640 (Mem)

In re MTA BUS COMPANY, Petitioner–Respondent,
v.
RESPONSIVE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent–Appellant.

10838
Index 451207/18

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED: JANUARY 23, 2020

Law Offices of James F. Sullivan, P.C., New York (William R. Larkin of counsel), for appellant.

Jones Jones LLC, New York (Jacqueline R. Mancino of counsel), for respondent.

Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kern, Oing, Gonza´lez, JJ.

179 A.D.3d 550

Judgment (denominated decision and order), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered December

114 N.Y.S.3d 641

21, 2018, which granted MTA Bus Company's (MTA) petition to confirm an arbitration award, dated April 5, 2018, in favor of MTA and against respondent insurer in the amount of $50,000

179 A.D.3d 551

plus statutory interest, and denied the insurer's cross petition, inter alia, to vacate the arbitration award, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the cross petition granted, and the arbitration award vacated.

The self-insured petitioner commenced an arbitration proceeding in New York against respondent insurer pursuant to New York Insurance Law § 5105 for reimbursement of worker's compensation benefits it paid to its employee in connection with a motor vehicle accident that involved respondent insurer's insured's vehicle. The arbitration panel rejected respondent insurer's argument that the panel did not have personal jurisdiction over it. The arbitration panel then found respondent insurer's insured to be 100% liable for the cause of the accident.

Contrary to the panel's finding, respondent insurer, based in Florida, established a prima facie case that New York lacked jurisdiction over it as it did not do business in New York or otherwise...