PNC Bank v. CVFF Dev. Corp.

Full title: PNC BANK, Plaintiff, v. CVFF DEVELOPMENT CORP. and JOSEPH FAVALORO…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Jul 13, 2017

DOCKET NO. A-5719-14T3 (App. Div. Jul. 13, 2017)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-5719-14T3

07-13-2017

PNC BANK, Plaintiff, v. CVFF DEVELOPMENT CORP. and JOSEPH FAVALORO, Defendants, and THOMAS FAVORITO and GEORGE D. CATTABIANI, JR., Defendants-Respondents, and JOHN VERDIGI, Defendant-Appellant.

Newman & Denburg, L.L.C., attorneys for appellant (Gary S. Newman, on the brief). Walsh & Walsh, attorneys for respondent Thomas Favorito (John K. Walsh, Jr., of counsel and on the brief). Stern & Stern, L.L.P. attorneys for respondent George D. Cattabiani, Jr., join in the brief of respondent Thomas Favorito.

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3. Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-8319-11. Newman & Denburg, L.L.C., attorneys for appellant (Gary S. Newman, on the brief). Walsh & Walsh, attorneys for respondent Thomas Favorito (John K. Walsh, Jr., of counsel and on the brief). Stern & Stern, L.L.P. attorneys for respondent George D. Cattabiani, Jr., join in the brief of respondent Thomas Favorito. PER CURIAM

Defendant John Verdigi appeals from a June 18, 2015 order confirming an arbitration award; a July 21, 2015 order awarding arbitrator's fees and costs; and a July 21, 2015 order granting plaintiff's petition for post-judgment discovery.

On appeal, defendant argues the following points:

Point I

STANDARD OF REVIEW.

Point II

THE ARBITRATOR'S DECISION TO "FORFEIT" THE LOANS AND AWARD ATTORNEY'S FEES EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF HIS AUTHORITY.

A) Grounds to modify or vacate Arbitrator's Award[.]

B) The arbitrator cannot rule on issues not before [h]im never raised by any party.

C[)] The forfeiture of the loans had no legal or factual basis and is absurd[.]

We conclude that defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant 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