From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cere v. Subway International B.V.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 7, 2012
96 A.D.3d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-06-7

Ornela CERE, Petitioner–Appellant, v. SUBWAY INTERNATIONAL BV, Respondent–Respondent.

Ornela Cere, appellant pro se. Wiggin and Dana LLP, New York (Michael L. Kenny Jr. of counsel), for respondent.


Ornela Cere, appellant pro se. Wiggin and Dana LLP, New York (Michael L. Kenny Jr. of counsel), for respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered August 25, 2011, granting respondent's motion to vacate a default judgment against it, and dismissing *553the petition to vacate an arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to petitioner's argument, respondent timely served its motion papers by mailing them more than nine days before the return date, using an overnight delivery service ( seeCPLR 2103[b][6]; 2214[b] ).

Petitioner failed to show that the petition was served on a person authorized to receive service of process pursuant to CPLR 311(a)(1). The provision of the parties' franchise agreement on which petitioner relies concerns only service of a notice required by the agreements, not service of process required by the CPLR. Moreover, commencement of the proceeding was untimely, since the purported service occurred more than 90 days after the award was received ( see Werner Enters. Co. v. New York City Law Dept., 281 A.D.2d 253, 721 N.Y.S.2d 536 [2001],lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 601, 735 N.Y.S.2d 490, 760 N.E.2d 1286 [2001] ).

In any event, the petition fails to present a basis for vacating the arbitration award. The omission of a reference to a tax withholding requirement does not create an explicit conflict with any law or public policy requiring tax withholding ( see Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v. State of New York, 94 N.Y.2d 321, 327, 704 N.Y.S.2d 910, 726 N.E.2d 462 [1999] ). Petitioner's argument that the award is barred by res judicata is without merit, since it relies on a proceeding to which petitioner was not a party ( see Matter of Hunter, 4 N.Y.3d 260, 269, 794 N.Y.S.2d 286, 827 N.E.2d 269 [2005] ).

GONZALEZ, P.J., FRIEDMAN, RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, ROMN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cere v. Subway International B.V.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 7, 2012
96 A.D.3d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Cere v. Subway International B.V.

Case Details

Full title:Ornela CERE, Petitioner–Appellant, v. SUBWAY INTERNATIONAL BV…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 7, 2012

Citations

96 A.D.3d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4384
945 N.Y.S.2d 552

Citing Cases

Horatio Arms, Inc. v. Celbert

Landlord's acknowledged failure to do so rendered the proceeding jurisdictionally defective. That tenant did…

63 W., LLC v. Bicher

But that a term of a contract between 63 West and Bicher provided for purposes of the contract that notices…