Lapointe v. Mendoza

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lapointe v. Mendoza

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 24, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50830(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Lapointe v. Mendoza (Lapointe v. Mendoza) 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

Lapointe v. Mendoza, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Samy Lapointe, Respondent,

against

Severiano Mendoza, Appellant.

Severiano Mendoza, appellant pro se. Samy Lapointe, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Joy F. Campanelli, J.), entered April 26, 2017. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate an arbitrator's award and, in effect, a judgment of that court entered October 16, 2017 pursuant to the arbitrator's award.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover $5,000 for loss of employment. The parties agreed to submit the matter to arbitration and signed a "consent to arbitration," advising them that the arbitration award was final and that no appeal would be permitted. Following the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator awarded plaintiff $5,000. Defendant subsequently moved to vacate the arbitrator's award. On October 16, 2017, a judgment was entered pursuant to the arbitrator's award (see Uniform Rules for NY City Civ Ct [22 NYCRR] § 208.41 [n] [5]). Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying his motion to vacate the arbitrator's award and, in effect, the judgment entered pursuant thereto.

A party seeking to vacate a small claims arbitration award, and a judgment entered pursuant thereto, bears the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, one of the [*2]statutory grounds enumerated in CPLR 7511 (b) (see e.g. Matter of Arab v ATC Jewelers, Inc., 45 AD3d 588 [2007]; May v Scotto-D'Abusco, 31 Misc 3d 148[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Here, defendant failed to establish any ground under CPLR 7511 (b) warranting the vacatur of the award.

We note that this court does not consider documents attached to defendant's brief on appeal, as they are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 24, 2019

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

Samy Lapointe, Respondent,

against

Severiano Mendoza, Appellant.

Severiano Mendoza, appellant pro se. Samy Lapointe, respondent pro se (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Joy F. Campanelli, J.), entered April 26, 2017. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate an arbitrator's award and, in effect, a judgment of that court entered October 16, 2017 pursuant to the arbitrator's award.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover $5,000 for loss of employment. The parties agreed to submit the matter to arbitration and signed a "consent to arbitration," advising them that the arbitration award was final and that no appeal would be permitted. Following the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator awarded plaintiff $5,000. Defendant subsequently moved to vacate the arbitrator's award. On October 16, 2017, a judgment was entered pursuant to the arbitrator's award (see Uniform Rules for NY City Civ Ct [22 NYCRR] § 208.41 [n] [5]). Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying his motion to vacate the arbitrator's award and, in effect, the judgment entered pursuant thereto.

A party seeking to vacate a small claims arbitration award, and a judgment entered pursuant thereto, bears the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, one of the [*2]statutory grounds enumerated in CPLR 7511 (b) (see e.g. Matter of Arab v ATC Jewelers, Inc., 45 AD3d 588 [2007]; May v Scotto-D'Abusco, 31 Misc 3d 148[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Here, defendant failed to establish any ground under CPLR 7511 (b) warranting the vacatur of the award.

We note that this court does not consider documents attached to defendant's brief on appeal, as they are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: May 24, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lapointe v. Mendoza, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lapointe-v-mendoza-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack