Jones v. Tisdell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Tisdell

239 A.D.2d 966, 662 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6477

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 966 (Jones v. Tisdell) 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

Jones v. Tisdell, 239 A.D.2d 966, 662 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to consolidate and dismiss appeals for failure timely to perfect denied and cross motions for extension of time to perfect denied. Memorandum: None of the appellants was assigned counsel by this Court. Both appeals therefore were required to be perfected within nine months of the date on the notices of appeal and were deemed abandoned and dismissed on December 22, 1996 (see, 22 NYCRR 1000.12 [b] [former 1000.3 (b) (2)]). We decline to exercise our discretion to convert the cross motions for extensions of time to perfect the appeals to motions to vacate the automatic dismissals because the order sought to be appealed is an intermediate order that is not appealable as of right (see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]), and leave to appeal is not warranted. Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Motion to consolidate and dismiss appeals for failure timely to perfect denied and cross motions for extension of time to perfect denied. Memorandum: None of the appellants was assigned counsel by this Court. Both appeals therefore were required to be perfected within nine months of the date on the notices of appeal and were deemed abandoned and dismissed on December 22, 1996 (see, 22 NYCRR 1000.12 [b] [former 1000.3 (b) (2)]). We decline to exercise our discretion to convert the cross motions for extensions of time to perfect the appeals to motions to vacate the automatic dismissals because the order sought to be appealed is an intermediate order that is not appealable as of right (see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]), and leave to appeal is not warranted. Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 966, 662 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-tisdell-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack