| Matter of Perskin v Bassaragh |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04399 [73 AD3d 1073] |
| May 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Robert S. Perskin, Respondent, v SteveBassaragh, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, SteveBassaragh, sometimes known as Steven Bassaragh, appeals from a judgment of the SupremeCourt, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered May 27, 2009, which, upon an order of thesame court dated March 24, 2009, granting the petition and confirming the arbitration award, isin favor of the petitioner and against him in the principal sum of $5,000.
Ordered that the notice of appeal from the order dated March 24, 2009, is deemed to be apremature notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In this proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, the appellant argued before the SupremeCourt that he was not properly served with the order to show cause and petition (seeCPLR 403 [d]). The Supreme Court found that service had been properly made andconfirmed the award.
Since the petition to confirm the arbitration award was "the first application arising out of anarbitrable controversy" (CPLR 7502 [a]), the petitioner properly commenced this proceeding bythe filing of an order to show cause and a petition and service thereof upon the appellant "in thesame manner as a summons in an action" (CPLR 403 [c]; see Matter of MRC Receivables Corp. v Taylor, 57 AD3d 1000,1001 [2008]). The affidavit of the process server herein constituted prima facie evidence ofproper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), and the appellant's bare and unsubstantiated denial ofservice was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the affidavit ofservice (see Beneficial HomeownerServ. Corp. v Girault, 60 AD3d 984 [2009]; Roberts v Anka, 45 AD3d 752, 753-754 [2007]; Jefferson v Netusil, 44 AD3d 621,621-622 [2007]). As service was properly made upon the appellant, and he failed to raise any ofthe grounds for vacating or modifying the arbitration award (see CPLR 7511 [b], [c]), theSupreme Court properly confirmed the award (see CPLR 7510).
Moreover, upon confirmation of the award, the Supreme Court properly awarded interest andcosts (see Matter of Meehan v Nassau Community Coll., 242 AD2d 155, 159-160[1998]).[*2]
The appellant's remaining contentions are not properlybefore this Court. Skelos, J.P., Miller, Eng, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.