The following numbered papers were read on this petition: Petition (NYSCEF Doc No. 1) Notice of Petition (NYSCEF Doc No. 2) Exhibit A — Arbitration Award (NYSCEF Doc No. 3) Exhibit B — Master Arbitration Award (NYSCEF Doc No. 4) Exhibit C — Respondent’s Arbitration Request Form and Arbitration Submission (NYSCEF Doc No. 5) (“Rutland’s Arbitration Request Form & Submission”) Exhibit D-1 — Petitioner’s Arbitration Submission and Master Arbitration Appeal (NYSCEF Doc No. 6) (“ATIC’s Arbitration Submission and Master Arbitration Brief”) Exhibit D-2 — Petitioner’s Arbitration Submission (NYSCEF Doc No. 7) Exhibit D-3 — Petitioner’s Arbitration Submission (NYSCEF Doc No. 8) Exhibit D-4 — Petitioner’s Arbitration Submission (NYSCEF Doc No. 9) Exhibit D-5 — Petitioner’s Arbitration Submission (NYSCEF Doc No. 10) Exhibit D-6 — Petitioner’s Arbitration Submission (NYSCEF Doc No. 11) Statement of Authorization for Electronic Filing (NYSCEF Doc No. 12) Request for Judicial Intervention (NYSCEF Doc No. 13) Affidavit of Service (NYSCEF Doc No. 14) Statement of Authorization for Electronic Filing (NYSCEF Doc No. 15) Affidavit of Service (NYSCEF Doc No. 16) Statement of Authorization for Electronic Filing (NYSCEF Doc No. 17) Notice of Cross-Petition (NYSCEF Doc No. 18) Cross-Petition (NYSCEF Doc No. 19) Stipulation to Adjourn (NYSCEF Doc No. 20) Statement of Authorization for Electronic Filing (NYSCEF Doc No. 21) Affirmation in Opposition to Cross-Petition and Reply in Support of Petition (NYSCEF Doc No. 22) Reply Affirmation in Support of Cross-Petition (NYSCEF Doc No. 23) DECISION, ORDER and JUDGMENT Issue Presented In a No-Fault insurance master arbitration, where the master arbitrator failed to address the issue of law asserted by the insurer, but the issue of law was previously decided by the court in a different Article 75 proceeding, must the master arbitration award be vacated? Background Petitioner American Transit Insurance Company (“ATIC”) commenced this CPLR Article 75 proceeding by notice of petition, seeking an order and judgment vacating a No-Fault insurance master arbitration award of Richard B. Ancowitz, Esq. (dated July 25, 2022), which affirmed the arbitration award of Wendy Bishop, Esq. (dated April 8, 2022) granting Respondent Rutland Medical, PC’s (“Rutland”) claim for No-Fault insurance compensation for range of motion testing, muscle testing, physical performance testing, outcome assessment testing, trigger point injections, and chiropractic treatment reflected in a total of 25 bills.1,2 Arbitrator Bishop awarded $2,713.58 to Rutland as compensation.3 The services at issue were provided to Shania M. Pessoa Craig, who claimed to have been injured in a motor vehicle accident on April 18, 2019. She assigned her No-Fault insurance benefits to Rutland, and is denoted as “Assignor.”4 (See NYSCEF Doc No. 1, Petition
