Bo Org Gi v. Chocgan and Toupay PARDM PLLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-07016
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BO ORG GI (List the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s}/petitioner(s).}

| OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE 4p, Lo , gue pa Liey ADV OF APPEAL Chocgan and Toupay PARDM PLLC {List the fulMname(s) of the defendant{s}/respoyd eni(s}.}

move under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for an extension of time, to file a notice of appeal in this action. I would like to appeal the judgment a □□ entered in this action on but did not file a notice of appeal within the required a ode ve time period because: - meg □□

(Expiajf here the excusaljle p&glect or agp6 cause that led to your failure to file a ti gy notice of appeal.)

Dated: Signature □ Milhavse- Maura Elvan Name (Last, First, Mi) qe js + | f NL (23 Streel fJO7 AD. SY ¢QOS Address City State Zip Code ' Telephone Number E-mail Address (if available} “4 aad

Rev. 3/27/45 \

P s l e a e i k n s t

i t f o f

' f s i

l m e o

t a i n o

n i

n f t o e r r

l d o e c f u a t u o l r t y

j a u p d p g e m a e l n

t o . f

t ( h D a k t t

. O

r # d 4 e 8 r ) . .

( NSoewe, D P k l t a . i

n # t 5 i 1 f ) f .

His time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 has already lapsed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Therefore, to be able to file his appeal, Plaintiff moves the Court to grant him an extension in his time to file a notice of appeal. (Dkt. #50). Plaintiff's motion is hereby DENIED. The Court denies Plaintiff's motions not because he lacks good cause for missing the original deadline, but rather because he seeks to file an improper appeal. The Court's August 21, 2025 Order is not an appealable final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See, e.g., Smart Study Co., Ltd. v. HAPPY PARTY-001, No. 22-1810-cv, 2023 WL 3220461, at *3 (2d Cir. May 3, 2023) (summary order)(holding that a denial of default judgment is not a final appealable order); Prince v. Ethiopian Airlines, 646 F. App'x 45, 47 (2d Cir. 2016)(summary order) (same); Jackson v. New York, 289 F. App'x 434, 435-36 (2d Cir. 2008) (same). Furthermore, the August 21, 2025 Order is not the type of order that 28 U.S.C. § 1292 allows him to challenge in an interlocutory appeal. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff's request for an extension in his time to appeal the August 21, 2025 Order because the Order would not be appealable even if Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 50. Further, the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address of record. Dated: September 30, 2025 New York, New York