Djeddah v. Starr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Djeddah v. Starr

306 A.D.2d 59, 759 N.Y.S.2d 680, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6370

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 5, 2003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered on or about May 17, 2002, which, inter alia, granted respondent attorney’s motion to confirm an award made by the Matrimonial Fee Dispute Arbitration Unit, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The client’s arguments premised upon her claims of malpractice are barred by the prior unappealed order recognizing the attorney’s charging lien and referring the matter for an assessment (see Smira v Roper, Barandes & Fertel, 302 AD2d 305 [2003]; Linden v Moskowitz, 294 AD2d 114, 115-116 [2002]). In any event, there was no showing that vacatur was warranted under the well-known standard insulating arbitral awards from disturbance on grounds of legal or factual error (see e.g. Lee v Omni Berkshire Place Hotel, 302 AD2d 286 [2003]; Azrielant v Azrielant, 301 AD2d 269 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 509 [2003]). Finally, in light of her participation at the arbitration hearing, there is no merit to the client’s claims she agreed only to mediation, but not arbitration, and was not provided with proper notice of the arbitration rules.

Contrary to appellant’s contention, the arbitration award did not violate public policy.

We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find [60] them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach

Footnotes

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

—Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered on or about May 17, 2002, which, inter alia, granted respondent attorney’s motion to confirm an award made by the Matrimonial Fee Dispute Arbitration Unit, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The client’s arguments premised upon her claims of malpractice are barred by the prior unappealed order recognizing the attorney’s charging lien and referring the matter for an assessment (see Smira v Roper, Barandes & Fertel, 302 AD2d 305 [2003]; Linden v Moskowitz, 294 AD2d 114, 115-116 [2002]). In any event, there was no showing that vacatur was warranted under the well-known standard insulating arbitral awards from disturbance on grounds of legal or factual error (see e.g. Lee v Omni Berkshire Place Hotel, 302 AD2d 286 [2003]; Azrielant v Azrielant, 301 AD2d 269 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 509 [2003]). Finally, in light of her participation at the arbitration hearing, there is no merit to the client’s claims she agreed only to mediation, but not arbitration, and was not provided with proper notice of the arbitration rules.

Contrary to appellant’s contention, the arbitration award did not violate public policy.

We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find [60] them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach

Footnotes

Djeddah v. Starr, 306 A.D.2d 59, 759 N.Y.S.2d 680, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

306 A.D.2d 59 (Djeddah v. Starr) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related