IN RE: Saul EDELSTEIN (2009)

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, Abraham Greisman appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated March 9, 2009, which granted the petition to confirm the award and, in effect, denied his application to vacate the award.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner demonstrated that he substantially complied with 22 NYCRR 1400, et seq., the rules applicable to all attorneys who undertake the representation of clients in matrimonial matters (see Gross v. Gross, 36 A.D.3d 318, 323-324, 830 N.Y.S.2d 166;  Garr v. Kinberg, 3 A.D.3d 322, 769 N.Y.S.2d 883).   It is undisputed that the petitioner provided the appellant, his client, with a retainer agreement that fully complied with 22 NYCRR 1400.3 in all respects (see Gross v. Gross, 36 A.D.3d at 321, 830 N.Y.S.2d 166;  Matter of Winkelman v. Furey, 281 A.D.2d 908, 721 N.Y.S.2d 847, affd. 97 N.Y.2d 711, 739 N.Y.S.2d 355, 765 N.E.2d 851;  see also Petosa v. Petosa, 56 A.D.3d 1296, 870 N.Y.S.2d 178;  cf. Mulcahy v. Mulcahy, 285 A.D.2d 587, 588, 728 N.Y.S.2d 90).

The petitioner also demonstrated that he provided the appellant with notice of the appellant's right to arbitrate any fee dispute (see 22 NYCRR 1400.7;  Garr v. Kinberg, 3 A.D.3d at 322, 769 N.Y.S.2d 883).   After the appellant terminated the petitioner's engagement almost two years after he retained and utilized the petitioner's legal services, the appellant refused to pay the outstanding balance due under the invoices sent.   Thereafter, the appellant elected to submit the fee dispute to arbitration.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the petition to confirm the arbitration award, which awarded the petitioner the outstanding balance due under the invoices in the sum of $6,690.38.   Despite the petitioner's dilatory submission of invoices to the appellant (see 22 NYCRR 1400.2;  Matter of Winkelman v. Furey, 281 A.D.2d 908, 721 N.Y.S.2d 847, affd. 97 N.Y.2d 711, 739 N.Y.S.2d 355, 765 N.E.2d 851;  cf. Wagman v. Wagman, 8 A.D.3d 263, 777 N.Y.S.2d 678), the petitioner sent sufficiently detailed invoices demonstrating that substantial services were rendered (see Garr v. Kinberg, 3 A.D.3d 322, 769 N.Y.S.2d 883;  cf. Flanagan v. Flanagan, 267 A.D.2d 80, 81, 699 N.Y.S.2d 406).   Moreover, the petitioner presented evidence that the appellant not only received and retained, without objection, the invoices for the legal services rendered, but also made a partial payment thereon, thereby ratifying them (see Johnner v. Mims, 48 A.D.3d 1104, 1105, 850 N.Y.S.2d 786;  Matter of Winkelman v. Furey, 281 A.D.2d at 908, 721 N.Y.S.2d 847;  see also Gross v. Gross, 36 A.D.3d at 322, 830 N.Y.S.2d 166;  see generally Mintz & Gold, LLP v. Hart, 48 A.D.3d 526, 528, 852 N.Y.S.2d 248).   Further, the appellant conceded that the arbitration panel was presented with the same issue raised herein regarding the petitioner's compliance with 22 NYCRR 1400.2, and rejected the appellant's arguments (cf. Papapietro v. Pollack & Kotler, 9 A.D.3d 419, 420, 781 N.Y.S.2d 42).

The Supreme Court properly determined that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis in the record to support the award and no basis to vacate it pursuant to CPLR 7511 (see Ryan & Henderson v. Haviv, 309 A.D.2d 939, 940, 766 N.Y.S.2d 120).

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.