Petitioner's contentions rest upon the erroneous premise that the Master Arbitrator was required to uphold the propriety of its denial of respondent's claim in the face of respondent's refusal to keep two dental appointments scheduled by petitioner. The Master Arbitrator, however, upheld the finding of the arbitrator that petitioner had acted improperly and in violation of 11 NYCRR 65.15 (a) by treating the respondent-applicant as an adversary, and that its denial of respondent...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
