Yahudaii v. Baroukhian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yahudaii v. Baroukhian

89 A.D.3d 557, 936 N.Y.2d 537

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 17, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 557 (Yahudaii v. Baroukhian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yahudaii v. Baroukhian, 89 A.D.3d 557, 936 N.Y.2d 537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[558]*558The JHO’s findings are supported by the record (see Barrett v Toroyan, 45 AD3d 301 [2007]). To the extent defendant challenges the quality of the legal services provided, his contentions are unavailing, because he failed to raise them before the JHO (see Marcano v U-Haul Co. of Va., 82 AD3d 479 [2011]; Dilorio v Gibson & Cushman of N.Y., 204 AD2d 167 [1994]). Similarly, at the inquest, defendant failed to raise the claim that he was misled as to what was scheduled to take place on the day of the inquest itself.

We find that the fee dispute is not subject to arbitration. While the retainer agreement properly references part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR), the fee dispute resolution program established by part 137 does not apply to fee disputes involving sums of more than $50,000, absent the consent of the parties (see 22 NYCRR 137.1 [b] [2]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, RJ., Tom, Catterson, Richter and Román, JJ.

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

[558]*558The JHO’s findings are supported by the record (see Barrett v Toroyan, 45 AD3d 301 [2007]). To the extent defendant challenges the quality of the legal services provided, his contentions are unavailing, because he failed to raise them before the JHO (see Marcano v U-Haul Co. of Va., 82 AD3d 479 [2011]; Dilorio v Gibson & Cushman of N.Y., 204 AD2d 167 [1994]). Similarly, at the inquest, defendant failed to raise the claim that he was misled as to what was scheduled to take place on the day of the inquest itself.

We find that the fee dispute is not subject to arbitration. While the retainer agreement properly references part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR), the fee dispute resolution program established by part 137 does not apply to fee disputes involving sums of more than $50,000, absent the consent of the parties (see 22 NYCRR 137.1 [b] [2]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, RJ., Tom, Catterson, Richter and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 557, 936 N.Y.2d 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yahudaii-v-baroukhian-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack