Golden v Lynch

[*1] Golden v Lynch 2014 NY Slip Op 50663(U) Decided on April 14, 2014 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 14, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and SOLOMON, JJ
2013-912 Q C.

Richard N. Golden, Respondent,

against

Bernadette M. Lynch, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered January 3, 2013. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a nonjury trial, dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

After timely seeking de novo review of the merits of an attorney's fee dispute following arbitration (see Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 137.8), plaintiff commenced this action to recover from defendant, whom he had previously represented as a respondent in a holdover summary proceeding, the sum of $1,137.50 for legal services rendered to her in that proceeding from March 3, 2010 to April 6, 2010, which amount remained unpaid. Defendant interposed a counterclaim in the sum of $4,653.53, seeking reimbursement of the legal fees she had paid to plaintiff, as well as other expenses she had allegedly incurred in the underlying holdover proceeding. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court, in a judgment entered January 3, 2013, dismissed the complaint and defendant's counterclaim. Defendant appeals from so much of the judgment as dismissed her counterclaim.

Although defendant claims that she was at a disadvantage because, as a self-represented litigant, she was not advised of various procedures, we note that a party's status as a self-represented litigant does not entitle the party to greater rights than any other litigant (see Roundtree v Singh, 143 AD2d 995 [1988]). Upon a review of the record, we find that defendant failed to demonstrate at trial that she was entitled to a refund of the amounts that she had paid to plaintiff for the legal services he had rendered in the underlying holdover proceeding. Similarly, she did not demonstrate that she was entitled to the cost she had incurred in hiring an electrician.

Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 14, 2014