City of Mount Vernon v. Mount Vernon Housing Authority

235 A.D.2d 516, 652 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 729
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 27, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by50 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 516 (City of Mount Vernon v. Mount Vernon Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Mount Vernon v. Mount Vernon Housing Authority, 235 A.D.2d 516, 652 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Motion by the defendant-respondent Commissioner of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal of the State of New York to enlarge the time to file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 6, 1995, and cross motion by the plaintiff-appellant for leave to serve and file an amended notice of appeal from that order.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and cross motion, and the papers filed in relation thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent’s time to file a brief on the appeal is enlarged up to and including February 7, 1997, and the respondent’s brief must be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,

Ordered that the cross motion is denied.

The order appealed from denied the motion of the plaintiff City of Mount Vernon, inter alia, for leave to serve an amended complaint, and granted the cross motion of the defendant Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to bring an appropriate action in the Court of Claims. The City filed a timely notice of appeal which expressly stated that it was appealing "from that part of the order * * * that denied the motion * * * for leave to serve an amended complaint and substitute a party defendant”. The City now moves for leave to serve and file an amended notice of appeal to provide that the appeal is from the whole, not just a part, of the order in question.

CPLR 5515 (1) requires that a notice of appeal designate the judgment or order, or specific part of the judgment or order, [517]*517from which the appeal is taken. This requirement is jurisdictional (Rich v Manhattan Ry. Co., 150 NY 542, 546). By taking an appeal from only a part of a judgment or order, a party waives its right to appeal from the remainder thereof (Royal v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 122 AD2d 132, 133; Marocco v Marocco, 53 AD2d 707, 708; cf., Quain v Buzzetta Constr. Corp., 69 NY2d 376, 379; 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 70:80).

The time within which to take an appeal as of right is strictly limited (CPLR 5513 [a]) and with certain exceptions which are not relevant here, CPLR 5514 (c) provides that "[n]o extension of time shall be granted for taking an appeal”. After the time to take an appeal has expired, it is too late to seek amendment of the notice of appeal to include portions of the judgment or order not previously specified (see, Hoffman v Manhattan Ry. Co., 149 NY 599; Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 105, at 440-441).

In conclusion, we note that there are rare occasions on which an appellate court may review and alter provisions of an order or judgment which were not described in a limited notice of appeal. That may occur when matters which are the subject of the limited appeal are "inextricably intertwined” with those that are not, so that to give appropriate relief requires the court, by necessity, to disturb a provision of the order or judgment which would otherwise not be before it (Matter of Burk, 298 NY 450, 455; Matter of Berke v Schechter, 5 NY2d 569, 577 [Froessel, J., dissenting]; Offset Paperback Mfrs. v Banner Press, 71 AD2d 593, 594; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 564; Matter of Kogan v Kogan, 75 AD2d 644, 645; Battipaglia v Barlow, 107 AD2d 1001, 1003; Feinberg v Saks & Co., 83 AD2d 952, 955 [Hargett, J., dissenting]). In light of this rule, our denial of the cross motion to amend the notice of appeal in this case does not foreclose the power of this Court to review and, if required, alter any portion of the order appealed from necessary to afford the appellant appropriate relief with respect to its limited appeal. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hemami v. Lauber
2025 NY Slip Op 04400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Khozissova v. Ralph Lauren Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 03332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Warner v. Port Byron Cent. Sch. Dist.
193 N.Y.S.3d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
OneWest Bank FSB v. Perla
2021 NY Slip Op 07550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Bomer v. Dean
2021 NY Slip Op 03937 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Big Apple Ortho Prods., Inc. v. MTA Bus Co.
69 Misc. 3d 126(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Violet Realty, Inc. v. Amigone, Sanchez & Mattrey, LLP
2020 NY Slip Op 2592 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Cline v. Code
2019 NY Slip Op 6251 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Harnden v. Lentzos
2019 NY Slip Op 1288 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Palopoli v. Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist.
2018 NY Slip Op 7441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Frank v. City of New York
2018 NY Slip Op 3922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Njcb Spec-1, LLC v. Budnik
2018 NY Slip Op 3376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Galanopoulos v. Galanopoulos
2017 NY Slip Op 5807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Walker v. Lippman
145 A.D.3d 1330 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
O'Brien v. Town of Huntington
131 A.D.3d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Tauman v. Gambino
124 A.D.3d 761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commission
113 A.D.3d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
W. Park Associates, Inc. v. Everest National Insurance
113 A.D.3d 38 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Hunt v. Raymour & Flanigan
105 A.D.3d 1005 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
White v. Farrell
987 N.E.2d 244 (New York Court of Appeals, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 A.D.2d 516, 652 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-mount-vernon-v-mount-vernon-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1997.