AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of RAOUL LIONEL FELDER, P.C., Appellant, v. MARY T. CARROLL, Respondent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant's contention, there was a rational basis for the arbitrators' determination that the appellant violated 22 NYCRR 1200.11 (c) (2) (iii) and 1400.5 (a), and directive that the appellant return $18,543 in legal fees paid to it by the respondent ( see Behrins Behrins v Sammarco, 305 AD2d 346; Mulcahy v Mulcahy, 285 AD2d 587; cf. Gross v Gross, 36 AD3d 318). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not err in, in effect, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding ( see Matter of Forest Riv., Inc. v Stewart, 34 AD3d 474; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v City of Yonkers, 21 AD3d 1110, 1111; see also Matter of McNamee, Lochner, Titus Williams [Killeen], 235 AD2d 17).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

FELDER v. CARROLL
(May 1, 2007)