SHRENIK BAVISHI v. MITCHELL MELNIKOFF ESQ (2010)

On October 5, 2009, Shrenik Bavishi filed a notice of appeal challenging two orders entered on August 28, 2009.   Both orders were based on enforcement motions by Mitchell Melnikoff, Esq. Bavishi had sued Susheela Verma, Melnikoff and a third attorney, who had represented Bavishi's wife in a dispute over control of his son's passport and green card.   The complaint was dismissed.   Melnikoff obtained an order awarding him fees and costs to be paid by Bavishi.   Ever since, Bavishi has filed numerous applications to avoid payment or collection of this and subsequent awards of counsel fees.   This is one more such attempt.

Melnikoff levied on a Bavishi bank account and moved for a turnover order.   Both motions were opposed.   One order provided that:

1.  Shrenik Bavishi has violated the litigant's rights of Mitchell Melnikoff, Esq.;

2. Shrenik Bavishi shall, within 15 days after service upon him of this Order, provide to Mitchell Melnikoff, Esq. complete answers as required by the information subpoenas without withholding any information;

3.  If Shrenik Bavishi fails to provide the information as required by number 2 above, within fifteen (15) days of the service of this order, a warrant for the arrest of Shrenik Bavishi shall issue out of this Court without further notice;

5.  Shrenik Bavishi shall, within 15 days of the date hereof, pay to Mitchell Melnikoff, Esq., at 10 Crestmont Rd., Montclair, NJ 07042, the sum of $250.00 as and for counsel fees, plus costs, necessitated by this motion;  ․

The second order provided “that Unity Bank pay to Mitchell Melnikoff, Esq., forthwith, the sum of $62.28 which has been levied upon.”   Both orders indicate that they were opposed.

On appeal, Bavishi contends that “there are two trial court orders of August 28, 2009 that are being appealed here.   There is no transcript, no notes by trial court judge and as a pro se I feel, that is unfair, biased and prejudiced.”   We reject this contention.   There was no oral argument, and therefore, no transcript.   The reasons for enforcement of a prior order awarding counsel fees and turning over assets that have been levied upon are self-apparent.   The status of pro se litigant does not change the application of the rule.

Bavishi also contends that “[m]y adversary is practicing attorney since 1965.   Just to embarrass me and to harass me, he sends court documents to my bank.   My bank, Unity Bank is not party in this litigation.”   Once again, we reject this contention.   Melnikoff attempted to levy on Bavishi's assets.   One of those assets is the Unity Bank account.   It is perfectly proper for Melnikoff to serve orders on Unity Bank directing the turnover of funds held for Bavishi by Unity.   Moreover, the contention has no relevance to the orders under review.

The last contention is that the “Hon. Appellate Court's decision of April 3, 08 is full of errors and mistakes.   I have a right to have a corrected, error free Decision.   Pages 1a to 3a.”   The issue has no relevance to this appeal of the two August 28, 2009 orders.   This contention is clearly improperly raised for several reasons.   First, a challenge to our prior decision is to be made to the Supreme Court.   R. 2:2-3.   Second, any motion for reconsideration of the prior opinion should have been filed “[w]ithin ten days after entry of judgment or order.”   R. 2:11-6.   Third, there is no error in our April 3, 2008 order.   Bavishi simply disagrees with the opinion.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM