Worldwide Asset Purch., LLC v Carter

[*1] Worldwide Asset Purch., LLC v Carter 2007 NY Slip Op 52233(U) [17 Misc 3d 1132(A)] Decided on June 6, 2007 Plattsburgh City Ct Clute, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 6, 2007
Plattsburgh City Ct

Worldwide Asset Purchasing, LLC, Petitioner,

against

Colleen Carter, Respondent.



C-175-2007

Penelope D. Clute, J.

Plaintiff served the Respondent with a Notice of Petition and Petition on March 3, 2007, seeking an "Order pursuant to Section 7510 of the CPLR confirming the award of the arbitrator and directing that judgment be entered thereon. . . ."

On April 12, 2007, the Court wrote to the parties informing them that the Court researched the law and concluded that "City Court is of limited jurisdiction and without authority to confirm, vacate or modify arbitration awards." Consequently, the Court dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction.

On April 18, 2007, the Plaintiff filed and served a "Notice of Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Letter/Decision dated April 12, 2007." The Respondent has not responded to the Notice of Motion. The Petitioner argues that the Court has misinterpreted Article 75 of the CPLR and Section 206 of the UCCA, and that they "specifically confer[s] jurisdiction on this Court."

The Court has carefully reviewed the motion to reconsider and the supporting documents. The Court has also read and considered the above-referenced sections of the CPLR and the UCCA, and relevant cases decided thereunder, as well as Commentary by Siegel.

This Court disagrees with Petitioner that CPLR § 7510, which begins "The court . . . ." specifically confers jurisdiction on City Court. Clearly, on its face there is no reference to City Court or any specific Court. This Court notes that the language of § 206 of the New York City Civil Court Act and § 206 of the Uniform District Court Act are different from, and more expansive than, § 206 of the Uniform City Court Act.

This Court found only two reported cases on the issue of City Court jurisdiction to confirm an arbitrator's award, and both ruled that City Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such a special proceeding. See Asset Acceptance LLC v Ryan, 10/3/2006 NYLJ 25, (col. 1) (Watertown City Court, Haberson, J. 2006) and MBNA America Bank, N.A. v Coe, 2 Misc 3d 355, 770 NYS2d 588 (White Plains City Court, Friia, J. 2003). That City Courts lack jurisdiction is stated at 4 West's McKinney's Forms Civil Practice and Rules § 10:187.

The subject of Siegel's Practice Review, December 2003 (143 Siegel's Prac. Rev. 3) is the MBNA America Bank, NA v Coe decision. Siegel disagrees with the holding, while [*2]acknowledging that "[b]ased on the facial language of the statutes, the court makes its point . . . ." He observes that "[a]n amendment of UCCA § 206 to conform it to the counterpart sections of the other acts . . . . would now be needed if the MBNA case is upheld as good law." It appears that no appellate court has ruled on this question.

This Court finds, as did the City Courts of Watertown and White Plains, that the language of UCCA § 206 compels the conclusion that Plattsurgh City Court does not have jurisdiction to confirm the arbitrator's award.

Now, therefore, the Court adheres to its prior decision that theNotice of Petition and Petition are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

ENTER:

________________________________

Penelope D. Clute

City Court Judge

Dated:Plattsburgh, New York

June 6, 2007