Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Arbitration between Cady & Aetna Life & Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided August 4, 1983Published

1Dissent

Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ.,

dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum by Mikoll, J. Mikoll, J. (dissenting). We respectfully dissent and vote to affirm. In our view, the determination of the master arbitrator that petitioner’s no-fault benefits be offset by workers’ compensation benefits awarded and paid over to petitioner’s employer is erroneous as a matter of law and without any rational basis. Under section 671 (subd 2, par [b]) of the Insurance Law, first-party benefits must be offset by “amounts recovered or recoverable * * * under state or federal laws providing * * *…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In re the Arbitration between Cady & Aetna Life & Casualty Co.New York Supreme Court · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API