M Entertainment, Inc. v. Leydier

919 N.E.2d 177, 13 N.Y.3d 827
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 27, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 919 N.E.2d 177 (M Entertainment, Inc. v. Leydier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
M Entertainment, Inc. v. Leydier, 919 N.E.2d 177, 13 N.Y.3d 827 (N.Y. 2009).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to that Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

The Appellate Division erred in concluding that plaintiffs’ noncompliance with the requirement that mail service be accomplished by mailing “within the state” {see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; [f] [1]) constituted a “fatal jurisdictional defect” requiring the dismissal of plaintiffs’ appeal against Lawrence Leydier. CPLR 5520 (a) provides:

“If an appellant either serves or files a timely notice of appeal or notice of motion for permission to appeal, but neglects through mistake or excusable neglect to do another required act within the time limited, the court from or to which the appeal is taken or the court of original instance may grant an extension of time for curing the omission.”

Plaintiffs here timely filed their notice of appeal with the New York County Clerk’s office, thus authorizing the Appellate Division to determine whether to exercise its discretion pursuant to CPLR 5520 (a). By contrast, the movants in Cipriani v Green (96 NY2d 821 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 639 [2001]) and [829]*829National Org. for Women u Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (70 NY2d 939 [1988], rearg denied 71 NY2d 890 [1988]) not only failed to timely serve their notices of motion for leave to appeal, but they also failed to timely file those papers with this Court. Thus, in those cases, the Court could not invoke its discretionary authority under CPLR 5520 (a).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

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

Related

CJA Realty Holdings, LP v. 14 Phila St. LLC
171 N.Y.S.3d 257 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Washington County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Oudekerk
2022 NY Slip Op 03038 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Miller v. Annucci
174 N.E.3d 368 (New York Court of Appeals, 2021)
Gibbs v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
2019 NY Slip Op 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Community Hous. Improvement Program v. Commissioner of Labor
2018 NY Slip Op 7391 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Henry
2018 NY Slip Op 1746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Oyague v. Clinton Correctional Facility
146 A.D.3d 1242 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
919 N.E.2d 177, 13 N.Y.3d 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-entertainment-inc-v-leydier-ny-2009.