The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF No.: Notice of Petition, Petition, Amended Petition, Cross Motion, Supporting Affirmations, and Exhibits Annexed 1, 3, 7-10; 17-26 Answer to Amended Petition, Affirmations in Opposition and Exhibits Annexed 11, 12-15 Affirmation (Affidavit) in Opposition to Cross Motion 27-28 DECISION AND JUDGMENT Upon the foregoing papers, petitioner Mark Salem (“Salem”) seeks an order confirming an arbitration award against respondent Debra Feldstein (“Feldstein”) and cross-moves for leave to further amend his amended petition (Mot. Seq. No. 1 and 2, respectively). Feldstein opposes. Background The underlying claim arises out of a legal fee dispute between the parties. On May 28, 2014, petitioner’s law firm, Salem & Shimko P.C., entered into a retainer agreement with respondent to “continue defending Client and two related corporations against a lawsuit filed against them in Brooklyn and Queens.” The retainer agreement is signed by petitioner Salem for Salem & Shimko P. C. and by respondent Feldstein. The matter was set down for arbitration commenced by Feldstein pursuant to the Fee Dispute Resolution Program (see 22 NYCRR 137.0). At the hearing before the arbitrator, Feldstein appeared pro se. The arbitrator denied Feldstein’s request to adjourn the hearing to permit her to retain counsel. By decision, dated August 27, 2018 (the “arbitration award”), the arbitrator found that by retainer agreement signed and dated May 28, 2014, Feldstein, on behalf of herself and two related corporations (Kings Overseas Corp and Kings Wear Inc.), engaged the law firm of Salem and Shimko, P.C. (the “firm”), of which Salem is a principal, in the defense of two previously commenced state-court actions. The arbitrator further found that Feldstein’s “request for arbitration…is void of any explanation whatsoever why she believes the attorney is not entitled to his fee[;] when questioned by the undersigned as to this[,] the client had no explanation.” The arbitrator awarded Salem the principal sum of $6,925.26 in attorney’s fees. On September 30, 2018, Feldstein commenced an action in the Suffolk County District Court (the “District Court”) against the firm pursuant to 22 NYCRR §137.8 for a de novo review of the arbitration award. By decision/order, dated January 23, 2019, the District Court dismissed Feldstein’s action for lack of personal jurisdiction. On August 22, 2019, Salem commenced the instant proceeding against Feldstein to confirm the arbitration award. His original petition was silent as to when the arbitration award was served on him. The omission was significant because under CPLR 7510 a petition to confirm an arbitration award must be filed “within one year after its delivery to [the petitioner].” By order, dated November 20, 2019, this Court directed that the “[p]etition to confirm the [arbitration] award of the arbitrator [be] adjourned to 1/8/2020 for supplemental papers relative to the service of the arbitrator’s decision.” On December 4, 2019, Salem filed an amended petition which, similar to the original petition, failed to indicate when the arbitration award was served on him. On January 1, 2020, Feldstein, by counsel, filed her opposition to the amended petition. She contended that the amended petition should be denied because, among other things, the arbitrator refused to adjourn the arbitration hearing to permit her to retain counsel. In response to Feldstein’s opposition, Salem cross-moved for leave to further amend his amended petition to allege (in
