SHRENIK BAVISHI v. SUSHEELA VERMA, ESQ.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-42901-05T3139-08T3

SHRENIK BAVISHI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SUSHEELA VERMA, ESQ. and

PAUL H. MANDAL, ESQ.,

Defendants,

and

MITCHELL MELNIKOFF, ESQ.,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________________

 

Submitted April 12, 2010 - Decided:

Before Judges A. A. Rodr guez and Chambers.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, L-3810-03.

Shrenik Bavishi, appellant pro se.

Mitchell Melnikoff, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Appellant Shrenik Bavishi appeals pro se from two orders entered by the Law Division, Civil Part: a March 20, 2009 order directing Unity Bank to turnover $386 to respondent Mitchell Melnikoff, which was levied upon; and a March 20, 2009 order awarding Melnikoff $750 in counsel fees and costs. We affirm.

This case has a long history. Appellant sued Susheela Verma, Paul H. Mandal and Melnikoff, three attorneys who represented appellant's wife in a dispute over control of his son's passport and green card. The complaint was dismissed. Melnikoff obtained an order awarding him $900 in fees and costs to be paid by appellant. We affirmed the amount of fees awarded, No. A-3854-03T3 (App. Div. December 21, 2004), and granted Melnikoff $150 in costs. No. M-4769-04 (App. Div. May 3, 2005). Melnikoff proceeded to enforce the counsel fees award. Appellant has opposed all efforts to execute on his assets. His efforts have all been proven without merit. We affirmed three Law Division orders denying appellant's several motions to defeat Melnikoff's awarded fees. Nos. A-2901-05T3, A-3874-05T3 and A-6473-05T3 (App. Div. April 3, 2008).

On appeal from the two most recent orders, appellant contends:

APPELLANT DID [NOT] GET ONE OF THE THREE MOTIONS PAPERS. APPELLANT DID [NOT] HAVE A CHANCE TO SUBMIT THE DEFENSE. TWO DAYS NOTICE WAS VERY SHORT TO PREPARE FOR THE ORAL ARGUMENTS FOR THIS CIVIL MATTER WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO TRIAL, NO DISCOVER[Y], AND NO DUE PROCESS.

We have carefully considered this contention and reject it. This argument is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). From our careful and extensive review of the record, we conclude that the challenged orders were properly entered. The turnover of funds order was in accordance with due process, as was the award of $750 in counsel fees. Melnikoff is entitled to enforce the several awards of counsel fees and to levy upon appellant's assets.

 
Accordingly, the two March 20, 2009 orders by Judge Mathias H. Rodriguez are affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-4139-08T3

April 28, 2010