Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4483-14T3
02-01-2016
ALLEN ZAVODNICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZAVODNICK, PERLMUTTER & BOCCIA, L.L.C., JOSEPH G. BOCCIA, and MITCHELL D. PERLMUTTER, Defendants-Respondents.
Allen Zavodnick, appellant pro se. Zavodnick, Perlmutter & Boccia, L.L.C., attorneys for respondent (Mitchell D. Perlmutter, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Leone. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-5207-14. Allen Zavodnick, appellant pro se. Zavodnick, Perlmutter & Boccia, L.L.C., attorneys for respondent (Mitchell D. Perlmutter, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Allen Zavodnick appeals from a February 20, 2015 trial court order dismissing his complaint against defendants, the law firm of Zavodnick, Perlmutter & Boccia, L.L.C., and plaintiff's two law partners Joseph G. Boccia and Mitchell Perlmutter, and directing that the dispute be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause of the firm's operating agreement. Plaintiff also appeals from an April 10, 2015 order denying his motion for reconsideration.
By way of background, this is but the most recent in a series of litigations by plaintiff against these same defendants, including two prior arbitrations conducted pursuant to the arbitration clause. Those arbitrations resulted in a first award determining that plaintiff had effectively withdrawn from the firm by ceasing to perform any work for the firm, and a second award setting an amount defendants were to pay to buy out his interest in the firm. The first arbitration award was confirmed by the trial court, and we affirmed on Mr. Zavodnick's appeal. Zavodnick, Perlmutter & Boccia L.L.C. v. Zavodnick, No. A-1242-11 (App. Div. Aug. 2, 2012), certif. denied, 213 N.J. 568 (2013). Neither side filed an action to vacate or confirm the second award. Instead, plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit claiming that defendants breached their fiduciary duty to him in various ways, including excluding him from the firm offices and stopping his regular compensation as a firm partner. Judge Jeffrey R. Jablonski concluded that plaintiff's claims arose under the partnership agreement and accordingly must be submitted to arbitration.
On this appeal, plaintiff argues that the arbitration clause did not apply to his claims that his partners breached their fiduciary duty to him, and that they "were in default" with respect to the second arbitration award because they did not move to confirm the award "within the time set forth by [Rule 4:21A]." The trial judge thoroughly and correctly addressed those issues and found them to be without merit. Having reviewed the record, we affirm for the reasons stated by Judge Jablonski in his written statement of reasons issued with the February 20, 2015 order and his April 10, 2015 oral opinion issued on the reconsideration motion. Plaintiff's appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We note only that, like Judge Jablonski, we do not address defendants' arguments that plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata or the entire controversy doctrine. Those issues, as well as any claims arising from the asserted frivolous nature of this litigation, may be addressed at arbitration.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION