Brookman & Brookman, P. C. v. Shaheed

136 Misc. 2d 927, 520 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1987 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2548
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedSeptember 4, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 136 Misc. 2d 927 (Brookman & Brookman, P. C. v. Shaheed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brookman & Brookman, P. C. v. Shaheed, 136 Misc. 2d 927, 520 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1987 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered July 22, 1986 is modified to the extent of [928]*928directing the Clerk of the Civil Court to place this matter immediately on the Arbitration Calendar without requiring a prearbitration conference, and, as so modified, is affirmed, without costs.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, an attorney, to recover counsel fees ostensibly earned while representing defendant’s wife in a matrimonial matter. The action came on for arbitration on May 24, 1985. The defendant claims to have had difficulty with public transportation and to have arrived after a $1,500 award had been rendered in favor of plaintiff upon defendant’s "default”. Defendant moved to vacate his default; that motion was unopposed and by order entered June 28, 1985, Thom, J., held: "Motion is granted on default, vacating and setting aside the judgment and restoring the case to the pro se calendar. Pro se clerk to notify both sides of new court date.”

The original record of this matter reflects that plaintiff called the Civil Court Clerk’s office a number of times to ascertain the new arbitration date. Initially the plaintiff was told that a date would be assigned in the ordinary course. Plaintiff, however, was subsequently informed that no new arbitration date would be fixed because the defendant had not paid a "required” $45 arbitration fee. It appears plaintiff was further advised that his only remedy was to move to have the original judgment restored upon the ground the defendant had not paid the required arbitration fee.

The original record reflects that the plaintiff thereafter moved to restore the default judgment because of defendant’s failure to pay the fee. That motion was granted on default by Thom, J., by order of May 23, 1986, "settle order on notice.” Thereafter the defendant again moved to vacate his default (presumably including both the default judgment as restored and defendant’s default on the plaintiff’s motion to restore the original default judgment), which motion was granted by order entered July 22, 1986 (L. Cohen, J.). That July 22, 1986 order is the order appealed from and provides: "The defendant’s motion to vacate his default and to set aside the judgment is granted. The court favors disposition of matters on their merits. The clerk is directed upon service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, upon the clerk, to add this to the pro se calendar. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the defendant in view of defendant’s pro se status.” In other words, the parties have traveled full circle and [929]*929are right where they were upon the initial vacatur by Thom, J., of defendant’s "default” at arbitration.

Authority pertaining to payment of an arbitration fee in connection with vacatur of a default at arbitration is found in Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 208.40 (a) and 22 NYCRR 28.7.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Juniper Walk Condominium v. Patriot Management Corp.
3 Misc. 3d 748 (White Plains City Court, 2004)
Goldstein v. Fox
175 Misc. 2d 883 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 Misc. 2d 927, 520 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1987 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brookman-brookman-p-c-v-shaheed-nyappterm-1987.