Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5312-12T4
02-11-2015
DEAN DOOLEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RAFAEL PICHARDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Rafael Pichardo, appellant pro se. D'Arcy Johnson & Day, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Steven K. Johnson, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher and Nugent. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. L-228-09. Rafael Pichardo, appellant pro se. D'Arcy Johnson & Day, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Steven K. Johnson, on the brief). PER CURIAM
This is a personal injury action. Defendant Rafael Pichardo appeals from two Law Division orders: an April 5, 2013 order confirming an arbitration award against him and a June 7, 2013 order denying his motion to vacate the arbitration award. We affirm.
Plaintiff Dean Dooley's cause of action against defendant arose when plaintiff, an Atlantic City Police Officer, attempted to remove defendant, who was being unruly, from a night club. An altercation ensued during which defendant bit off part of plaintiff's left index finger.
Plaintiff filed a personal injury action that was eventually scheduled for mandatory arbitration as required by Rule 4:21A-1(a)(2). Twenty-two days before the arbitration, the trial court received a letter from defendant explaining that he was incarcerated but wanted to participate in the arbitration. Two days after the court received the letter, defendant's brother telephoned one of the court's trial team leaders and the team leader explained to him the arbitration process. The same day, the team leader wrote to both plaintiff and defendant explaining what defendant needed to do to either be transported to the courthouse for the arbitration or appear by way of a video conference. The team leader enclosed a relevant directive from the Administrative Office of the Court.
Defendant did not appear at the arbitration and the arbitrators entered an award favorable to plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award. Defendant filed a demand for a trial de novo, which the court rejected as untimely. R. 4:21A-6(b)(1). Defendant later filed, eight days after the court entered an order confirming the arbitration award, opposition to plaintiff's motion to confirm the arbitration award. The court entered the order confirming the arbitration award on April 5, 2014.
Defendant filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award. Judge James E. Isman issued a written decision denying defendant's motion. Defendant appealed from the implementing order the court filed on June 7, 2013.
We affirm, substantially for the reasons explained by Judge Isman in his written opinion. Judge Isman comprehensively recounted the efforts the court made to explain to defendant the arbitration process, writ procedure, and the option of participating in the arbitration by video conference; applied the relevant law to the record before him; and acted well within his discretion throughout the course of the proceedings. Defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION