|
A civil court in New York determined the procedures for obtaining de novo review of an attorney fee arbitration award under New York law and found that it did not have jurisdiction over the matter based on the remedy sought by the Petitioner.
In Pruzan v. Levine, No. 114263/06, 2007 WL 340105 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. Feb. 6, 2007), Thomas Pruzan was retained by Laurence Levine for legal representation. Levine paid Pruzan a retainer fee which Levine demanded that Pruzan repay upon termination of his representation. Upon Pruzan's refusal, Levine demanded arbitration of the dispute under the New York State Fee Dispute Resolution Program.
An award was issued in favor of Levine. However, the award listed Pruzan's father rather than Pruzan. Another award was issued with the correct name. However, Pruzan filed for a trial de novo, in order to be in compliance with the state's 30 day window for appeal of the arbitration award. Subsequently, Pruzan filed a petition to keep the retainer.
The Court noted that de novo review has caused confusion regarding the appropriate pleadings and the appropriate court in which to seek relief. Thus, the Court outlined the appropriate procedure for seeking de novo review. First, the party must make a good faith attempt to appeal within the 30 day window. Second, the remedy sought must be identified. In cases such as the instant case, where the party is claiming that no money is owed by him, the appropriate court is the supreme court. If the party is seeking money owed to him, the civil court has jurisdiction of claims for amounts not exceeding $25,000. Based on the foregoing, the Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Pruzan's claim.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|