Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bavishi v. Verma

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


April 28, 2010

SHRENIK BAVISHI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
SUSHEELA VERMA, ESQ. AND PAUL H. MANDAL, ESQ., DEFENDANTS, AND MITCHELL MELNIKOFF, ESQ., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

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

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted April 12, 2010

Before Judges A. A. Rodríguez and Chambers.

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.

20100428

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.