Matter of Law Offs. of Thomas F. Liotti, LLC v. Davoudiasl
147 A.D.3d 1057
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Law Offices of Thomas F. Liotti, LLC represented Farzad Davoudiasl in a matrimonial action; a post‑representation fee dispute was submitted to the Fee Dispute Resolution Program.
- A panel issued an arbitration award on May 19, 2014 in favor of the firm for $34,565.13.
- 22 NYCRR 137.8(a) requires a party aggrieved by such an award to commence a court action on the merits within 30 days of mailing of the award, or the award becomes final and binding.
- Davoudiasl alleges he attempted to file a demand for a trial de novo but was prevented by law‑office or court‑clerk failure and thus did not timely commence a de novo action.
- The firm petitioned in Supreme Court, Nassau County to confirm the arbitration award; the court granted the petition on April 8, 2015, then on reargument (Aug. 11, 2015) adhered to that determination and directed resubmission of a judgment.
- Davoudiasl appealed the reargument order; the Appellate Division affirmed, holding he forfeited his right to de novo review by failing to commence timely proceedings and did not show grounds to vacate or modify the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether demand for a trial de novo or attempts to file it constitute "commenc[ing] an action on the merits" under 22 NYCRR 137.8(a) | Davoudiasl argued his attempted filing (which he says failed due to law‑office/court clerk error) should suffice to preserve de novo review | The firm argued the rule requires commencing a court action within 30 days, not merely attempting or mailing a demand | The court held that mailing or filing a demand does not satisfy the rule; a timely commenced court action is required, so Davoudiasl forfeited de novo review |
| Whether equitable relief (excusing late commencement) is available for alleged clerk or office failures | Davoudiasl sought relief based on filing impediments | The firm maintained the 30‑day rule is absolute and not subject to equitable tolling here | The court held the 30‑day period is absolute for fee dispute de novo actions and the court lacks discretion to excuse late commencement |
| Whether any other grounds existed to vacate or modify the arbitration award | Davoudiasl did not specify substantive objections to the award | The firm asserted no basis for vacatur or modification was presented | The court held no valid basis for vacatur or modification was shown; confirmation was proper |
| Whether the Supreme Court erred in confirming the award and directing entry of judgment | Davoudiasl argued procedural irregularities and denial of his opportunity to oppose warranted relief | The firm argued the petition was properly granted and the award final | The court affirmed the confirmation and direction to resubmit judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Gold, Stewart, Kravits, Benes, LLP v. Crippen, 109 A.D.3d 919 (App. Div. 2013) (holds the 30‑day period for commencing a de novo action from a fee arbitration award is absolute and not subject to excusal)