Find Legal Information

                            SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                            APPELLATE DIVISION

CHARLES J. BEHM,                    Docket #A-5305-93T5

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

    vs.

JOAQUIM M. FERREIRA,

        Defendant-Appellant.

ANTONIO MARTINS,                    Docket #A-5309-93T5

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

    vs.

ROLANDO O. CRUZ, JR., and DOES I
AND II, inclusive,

        Defendants-Appellants.
-----------------------------------

TERI JEAN GREEN and BRUCE GREEN,
her spouse; MARY THERESA DUNN;
MARCELLINA SEITZ; PATRICIA L.
SCOTT; and MARTINA GORMLEY ROTH,

        Plaintiffs-Respondents

    vs.

ROLANDO CRUZ, JR.,

        Defendant-Appellant,

    vs.

ANTONIO MARTINS, SHERATON INN-NEWARK
AIRPORT, ITT-SHERATON, a Massachusetts
Corporation,
-----------------------------------

SHARYN VAUGHN,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

    vs.

ROLANDO CRUZ, JR.,

        Defendant-Appellant,

and

ANTONIO C. MARTINS, GELCO
CORPORATION, CONTINENTAL COMPANIES,
INC., d/b/a SHERATON HOTELS, and ABC
COMPANY, name being fictitious,

        Defendants-Respondents.

JUANITA RIVERA and CLARA RIVERA,        Docket #A-5310-93T5

        Plaintiffs-Respondents,

    vs.

JOSE L. QUINTANA,

        Defendant-Appellant,

and

JESUS RIVERA, CSC INSURANCE
SERVICES and NEW JERSEY UNDERWRITERS
ASS'N, AMGRO, INC., MARKET TRANSITION
FACILITY OF N.J., and JOHN DOE,

        Defendants.

TONJA SWAIN,                        Docket #A-5311-93T5

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

    vs.

DIONNE SPANN, JOHN DOE (fictitious
name) and ABC CORP. (fictitious
name),

        Defendants-Appellants.

VIVIAN COLANTINO, NICHOLAS J.         Docket #A-5446-93T5
COLANTINO, her spouse; ANTHONY C.
COLANTINO, by his Guardian Ad
Litem, VIVIAN COLANTINO; JUNE
DeSTEFANO and ANTHONY DeSTEFANO,
her spouse,

        Plaintiffs-Respondents,

    vs.

FRANCISCO ARANGO, individually and
as agent for FIDELCOR SERVICES, INC.;
and FIDELCOR SERVICES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation,

        Defendants/Appellants.


        Argued November 28, 1995 - Decided January 18, 1996

        Before Judges Baime, Villanueva, and Kimmelman.See footnote 1

        On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union and Bergen Counties.

        Daryl Ann Bancks argued the cause for appellants (Ruvoldt & Ruvoldt, attorneys; Kimberly Hintze-Wilce, Ms. Bancks, of counsel; Ms. Hintze-Wilce, on the briefs).

        Carl J. Herman, attorney for plaintiff-respondent Antonio Martins (Mr. Herman, of counsel and on the brief).

        Lucariello & Gualano, attorneys for respondents Mary Theresa Dunn, Marcellina Seitz and Martina Gormley Roth (Hugh E. Lucariello, of counsel and on the brief).

        Gary Bundy argued the cause for respondent Sharyn Vaughn (LaCorte, Bundy & Varady, attorneys; Christopher J. Kinsella, of counsel and on the brief).

        Robert Brotman, attorney for respondent Juanita Rivera (Mr. Brotman, of counsel and on the brief).

        Samuel Lachs argued the cause for defendants-respondents Sheraton Inn-Newark Airport, ITT Sheraton, Gelco Corporation, Continental Companies, Inc., d/b/a Sheraton Hotels and Antonio Martins (Judith A. Heim, attorney; Lisa A. Arkin, of counsel and on the brief).

        Luis A. Alum argued the cause for respondents Vivian Colantino, Nicholas Colantino, June DeStefano and Anthony DeStefano (Alum & Ferrer, attorneys; Mr. Alum, of counsel; Mr. Alum and Carlos A. Ferrer, on the brief).

        The opinion of the court was delivered by

VILLANUEVA, J.A.D.

    In these consolidated cases,See footnote 2 defendants appeal from various trial court orders confirming arbitration awards and denying defendants' untimely motions for trials de novo based upon defendants' claim of excusable neglect by an associate of the law firm defending the various insurance carriers who failed to handle the matters properly and failed to file for trials de novo. We affirm.

arose out of an automobile accident which occurred on November 15, 1990. On February 16, 1994, arbitration of all three actions was held, at which time defendant Cruz was found to be 100" liable. The arbitrator awarded Vaughn $12,500; Seitz $100,000; Scott $12,500; Dunn $75,000; Roth $12,500; Green $12,500; and Martins $250,000. The aggregate arbitration award of $475,000 exceeded Cruz's policy limits of $15,000/$30,000. Thereafter, Hurley, who had appeared at the arbitration hearings, failed to communicate with the insurance carrier Hertz Claim Management/EDS or take any other action in the case.
    By notice of motion dated April 15, 1994, counsel for plaintiff Martins sought to confirm the arbitration award. Counsel for the remaining plaintiffs also filed similar motions. Ruvoldt filed a cross-motion for a trial de novo out of time and to consolidate the three actions.
    On May 13, 1994, after hearing oral argument, Judge Beglin entered an order confirming the arbitration awards in the aggregate of $475,000 and denying defendant's cross-motion to file for a trial de novo out of time. The judge, pursuant to R. 2:5-1(b), later filed a formal opinion with the Appellate Division. Judge Beglin found that Hurley's inattention "was a rather classic example of the `neglectful attorney' syndrome described in Sprowl v. Kitselman, 267 N.J. Super. 602 (App. Div. 1993), and that it did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance as would permit the attorney to make a late demand for trial de novo."

defense counsel's office was manifest, absolutely nothing of an extraordinary circumstance was shown."

defendants even after the fifty-day period. R. 4:21A-6(b)(3). Thereafter, plaintiffs' attorney contacted Ruvoldt's office advising Hurley that the new return date of the motion would be March 18, 1994, and asking him to return the telephone call. Neither Hurley nor anyone else from Ruvoldt's office contacted plaintiffs' attorney or otherwise responded to the motion to confirm the arbitration award.
    On March 18, 1994, Judge Arthur L. Troast signed the order confirming the arbitration award against Francisco Arango, individually and as agent for Fidelcor Services, Inc., and Fidelcor Services, Inc. The signed order was forwarded to Ruvoldt's office on March 22, 1994. On April 12, 1994, another letter was mailed to Hurley advising that, notwithstanding the signed order, the respective offices had to appear in court for a calendar call/trial on Monday, April 18, 1994.See footnote 5 On April 15, 1994, Ruvoldt, solely on behalf of Arango, filed a motion seeking to vacate the prior judgment and filed a motion for a trial de novo out of time.
    After oral argument, Judge Troast denied defendant Arango's motions, finding that "this is a case where relaxation of the dismissal provision would not promote finality of arbitration but rather would accomplish the opposite result. Again, in my opinion the movants have not established extraordinary circumstances."

`extraordinary circumstances' as will permit an attorney to make a late demand for a trial de novo." Id. at 609. We remanded the matter for arbitration only because the plaintiff's counsel had no notice of the arbitration hearing. Id. at 609-10.
    This case involves the integrity of the arbitration process and enforceability of arbitration awards. If a party could set aside an arbitration award and obtain a trial de novo whenever his or her attorney neglected to file for a trial de novo within time solely because of a clerical error or failure to note or advise the client of the thirty-day requirement to file for a trial de novo, there would be an open door which would render the thirty-day time limit of R. 4:21A-6(b)(1) meaningless. Such a relaxation of the rule "thwarts the effectiveness of a valid arbitration." Id. at 610.
    The excuse that an attorney is too busy or has too heavy a work load to properly handle litigation or to supervise staff is insufficient to constitute extraordinary circumstances. See, Hart v. Property Mgmt. Sys., 280 N.J.Super. 145, 148-49 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 141 N.J. 99 (1995) (party's counsel failed to establish mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect sufficient to obtain relief from judgment confirming arbitration award following party's failure to file a timely demand for trial de novo).
    The fact that the defense attorney was hired by the defendants' insurance carriers or that some of the awards exceeded policy limits has no bearing in our decision.

    We affirm all these judgments substantially for the reasons set forth by Judges Beglin and Troast in their thoughtful and thorough opinions of July 1, 1994, and May 13, 1994, respectively.

Footnote: 1 Judge Kimmelman did not participate in oral argument. However, the parties consented to his participation in the decision. Footnote: 2 The Swain case was settled before argument and the Behm case was settled after oral argument. Footnote: 3 Mr. Hurley was admitted to the New Jersey Bar in 1989 and was employed by the law firm of Ruvoldt & Ruvoldt, P.A., from January 3, 1994, until he failed to appear at work on April 11, 1994. He subsequently telephoned Ruvoldt and resigned as a result of personal problems. He refused to give any further explanation. Footnote: 4 Plaintiff Clara Rivera's case was voluntarily dismissed as not meeting the verbal threshold. Footnote: 5 For some inexplicable reason, the motion, notice of appeal and the appellate brief fail to mention the other defendants against whom judgment was also entered.