Crane v. State

324 N.E.2d 550, 35 N.Y.2d 945, 365 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1095
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 20, 1974·No. Claim No. 47684·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Application is made here to vacate the order of this court dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute. While counsel for the litigants are accorded powers of man[946]*946agement of appeals in this court to the limited extent now provided in rule 500.6 (b) (22 NYCRR 500.6 [b]) (the so-called 20-day rule), the consent or acquiescence of opposing counsel will hot relieve a defaulting party from the strictures of the nine months’ requirement of rule 500.6 (a) (22 NYCRR 500.6 [a]). In this instance, the notice of appeal was dated May 23, 1968. The fact that counsel for respondent may now be willing to participate in argument of the appeal affords no ground for vacatur of the order of dismissal entered November 6,1974.

Accordingly the motion is denied.

Motion to vacate an order of dismissal of the Court of Appeals, dated November 6,1974, denied.

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

Crane v. State, 324 N.E.2d 550, 35 N.Y.2d 945, 365 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1095 (N.Y. 1974).

324 N.E.2d 550 (Crane v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bray v. Cox
342 N.E.2d 575 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)