The opinion
American Tr. Ins. Co. v Gotto Med. Care, PC
2026 NY Slip Op 30903(U)
March 10, 2026
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 650698/2025
Judge: Emily Morales-Minerva
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.6506982025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX049_TO.html[03/19/2026 3:45:56 PM]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 02:39 PM INDEX NO. 650698/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 42M
---------------------X
AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, INDEX NO. 650698/2025
Petitioner,
MOTION DATE 02/26/2025
- V -
MOTION SEQ. NO. 001
GOTTO MEDICAL CARE, PC,
Respondent.
DECISION+ ORDER ON
MOTION
---------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2
were read on this motion to/for VACATE - DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT/AWARD
APPEARANCES:
Larkin Farrell LLC, New York, New York (William Robert Larkin,
Esq., of counsel), for petitioner.
Peter J. Diconza, Jr., Port Washington, New York (Peter James
Diconza, Esq., of counsel), for respondent.
EMILY MORALES-MINERVA, J.S.C.
In this special proceeding, petitioner AMERICAN TRANSIT
INSURANCE COMPANY moves, by notice of petition (motion sequence
number 01), pursuant to CPLR § 7511, to vacate the arbitration
award issued by Arbitrator Lisa Capruso, Esq., and subsequently
confirmed by Master Arbitrator Vic D'Ammora, Esq., in favor of
respondent GOTTO MEDICAL CARE, PC. Respondent opposes the
petition. 1
1 Respondent does not cross-petition or cross-move to confirm the arbitration
award.
650698/2025 AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. GOTTO MEDICAL CARE, PC, Page 1 of 7
Motion No. 001
[* 1] 1 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 02:39 PM INDEX NO. 650698/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2026
For the reasons explained below, petitioner's petition
(mot. seq. no. 01) is denied.
BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2022, non-party Olushola Fashola was injured
in a motor vehicle accident (see New York State Court Electronic
Filing System [NYSCEF] Doc. No. 01, petition). As a result of
the accident, Mr. Fashola received medical treatment, including
left shoulder surgery from respondent GOTTO MEDICAL CARE, PC
(respondent) on February 13, 2023 (see id.; see also NYSCEF Doc.
No. 03, lower arbitration award, dated September 29, 2024).
Thereafter, respondent submitted a no-fault benefit claim
to petitioner seeking reimbursement of the medical treatment
provided to Mr. Fashola, but Petitioner denied reimbursement of
said claim based on lack of (1) medical necessity; and lack of
(2) causation (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 01, petition). Specifically,
petitioner relied on the peer review report of Dr. Nicholas
Delaney, a review of the intraoperative photographs by Dr.
Matthew D. Skolnick, and the MRI film review of Dr. Jeffrey
Warhit (see id.). As a result of the denial, respondent
initiated arbitration with petitioner (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 05,
motor vehicle no-fault insurance law arbitration request form,
dated April 26, 2024).
650698/2025 AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. GOTTO MEDICAL CARE, PC, Page 2 of7
Motion No. 001
[* 2] 2 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 02:39 PM INDEX NO. 650698/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2026
The American Arbitration Association (AAA) assigned the
action to Arbitrator Lisa Capruso (Arbitrator Capruso) pursuant
to AAA Case No. 17-24-1345-5975, and on September 24, 2024,
Arbitrator Capruso conducted a hearing (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 03,
lower arbitration award). Arbitrator Capruso reviewed one
disputed claim for $3,261.63 (see id.). To support its denial
of the claim, petitioner submitted the peer review report of Dr.
Nicholas Delaney, who concluded that Mr. Fashola's injury was
not casually related to his motor vehicle accident (see id.).
In rebuttal, respondent submitted the report of Dr. Victor Katz
(see id.) .
Upon conclusion of the hearing and in consideration of the
evidence and testimony submitted, Arbitrator Capruso determined
that the peer review report submitted by petitioner did not
establish that Mr. Fashola's injury was not casually related to
the accident (see id., p 2). Accordingly, Arbitrator Capruso
awarded respondent $3,261.63 for the claim in dispute, plus
statutory interest, attorneys' fees, and filing fees (see id.).
Petitioner appealed, and the matter was assigned to Master
Arbitrator Vic D'Ammora, Esq. (master arbitrator) pursuant to
AAA Case No. 99-24-1345-5975 (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 01, petition).
The master arbitrator affirmed Arbitrator Capruso's decision
entirely.
650698/2025 AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. GOTTO MEDICAL CARE, PC, Page 3 of 7
Motion No. 001
[* 3] 3 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 02:39 PM INDEX NO. 650698/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2026
Despite the two-tier arbitration process, petitioner
commenced the instant Article 75 proceeding, seeking vacatur of
the $3,261.63 award pursuant to CPLR § 7511 (b) (1) (iii)2 (see
NYSCEF Doc. No. 01, petition). Petitioner contends that the
"arbitrator's decision was arbitrary and capricious, without
rational basis and incorrect as a matter of law" (id., p 9).
Respondent opposes, arguing that the arbitrators' decisions
were not arbitrary or capricious, or incorrect as a matter of
law.
ANALYSIS
"It is a bedrock principle of arbitration law that the
scope of judicial review of an arbitration proceeding is
extremely limited" (Frankel v Sardis, 76 AD3d 136, 139 [1st Dept
2010], citing Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 NY2d 299
[1984]) . "Accordingly, an award will not be overturned unless
it is violative of a strong public policy, or is totally
2 Section 7511 of the CPLR provides, as relevant here:
"(a) An application to vacate or modify an award may be made by a party
within ninety days after its delivery to him.
"(b) Grounds for vacating.
1. The award shall be vacated on the application of a party who either
participated in the arbitration or was served with a notice of
intention to arbitrate if the court finds that the rights of that party
were prejudiced by:
(iii) an arbitrator, or agency or person making the award
exceeded his power or so imperfectly executed it that a final and
definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not
made . . "
650698/2025 AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. GOTTO MEDICAL CARE, PC, Page4of7
Motion No. 001
[* 4] 4 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 02:39 PM INDEX NO. 650698/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2026
irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on
the arbitrator's power" (Frankel, 76 AD3d at 139, quoting
Silverman, 61 NY2d at 308, and Board of Educ. of Dover Union
Free School Dist. V Dovr-Wingdale Teachers' Ass'n, 61 NY2d 913,
915 [1984] ) .
An "arbitrator's interpretation of the issues and the scope
of their authority is accorded substantial deference, and [the]
Court will not overturn the decision unless there is no support
at all justifying the decision" (Roffler v Spear, Leeds &
Kellogg, 13 AD3d 308, 310 [1st Dept 2004] [emphasis added])
Indeed, "a court cannot examine the merits of an arbitration
award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator
simply because it believes its interpretation would be the
better one" (Matter of Arbitration Between Spence and State
Univ. of New York, 230 AD3d 1559, 1561 [4th Dept 2024], citing
Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police
Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 326
[1999]). Therefore, "the party seeking to upset an arbitration
award bears a heavy burden" (Frankel, 76 AD3d at 140, citing
Lehman Bros., Inc. v Cox, 10 NY3d 743, 744 [2008]).
Here, the petition must be denied because petitioner has
failed to establish any cognizable ground for vacatur under
CPLR § 7511 (b) (1) (iii). Arbitrator Capruso considered the
evidence submitted by both parties, and concluded that
650698/2025 AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. GOTTO MEDICAL CARE, PC, Page 5of7
Motion No. 001
[* 5] 5 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 02:39 PM INDEX NO. 650698/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2026
"[petitioner] [did] not submit any evidence which would
establish that [Mr. Fashola's] injuries or [respondent's]
services were not casually related to the accident" (NYSCEF Doc.
No. 03, arbitration award, p 2; see also NYSCEF Doc. No. 12, Dr.
Katz's report["Dr. Delaney never provided a medical rationale
why the surgery was not medically necessary"]).
Thereafter, the master arbitrator appropriately determined
that Arbitrator Capruso acted within her authority in weighing
the evidence and giving greater weight to the evidence she felt
was most persuasive (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 01, petition). Mere
disagreement with an arbitrator's factual findings or the manner
in which the evidence was weighed does not constitute a basis
for vacatur of an arbitration award under CPLR § 7511
(b) (1) (iii).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the petition of petitioner AMERICAN TRANSIT
INSURANCE COMPANY to vacate the arbitration award issued in AAA
Case No. 17-24-1345-5975 is denied in its entirety; it is
further
ORDERED that petitioner shall serve a copy of this decision
and order with notice of entry upon respondent GOTTO MEDICAL
CARE, PC within fifteen days from the date of this decision and
order; and it is further
650698/2025 AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. GOTTO MEDICAL CARE, PC, Page6of7
Motion No. 001
[* 6] 6 of 7
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 02:39 PM INDEX NO. 650698/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2026
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark the file
accordingly.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
3/10/2026
DATE
~
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
650698/2025 AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. GOTTO MEDICAL CARE, PC, Page 7 of 7
Motion No. 001
[* 7] 7 of 7