In Mahl v. Rand, 11 Misc.3d 1072[A] 2006 NY Slip Op 50518[U] [N.Y.City Civ.Ct. 2006] a client, acting pro se, went to the civil court a number of time, post-arbitration, in an attempt to file a request for a trial de novo. The clerks in the civil court informed the client the trial de novo could not be filed in the court, but offered no suggestion as to where it could be filed. The Mahl court pointed out that the client's efforts to commence the trial de novo were "confirmed", and considered the document the client was attempting to file as a cross petition to the request to confirm the arbitrator's award.The client in Mahl was acting pro se, and pro se litigants are given a certain amount of leeway. The Mahl client actually made confirmed attempts to file the request for a trial de novo with a court.