Panasia Estate, Inc. v. Broche

103 A.D.3d 426, 959 N.Y.S.2d 190
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 5, 2013·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about December 22, 2011, which, inter alia, resettled an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 30, 2011, inter alia, declaring void ab initio contracts of sale for the properties at 51 and 53 West 19th Street between defendant Daniel R. Broche, as Ancillary Executor of the Estate of Agnes M. Broche, and defendants Property 51 LLC and Property 215 LLC, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as untimely.

Defendants Property 51 LLC and Property 215 LLC are aggrieved not by the December 22, 2011 order from which they purport to appeal but from the earlier June 30, 2011 order. Contrary to their contention, there is no material difference between the two. Thus, defendants’ time to appeal must be measured from the June 30 order (see Kitchen v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 221 AD2d 195 [1st Dept 1995]). Defendants failed to include the notice of entry and affidavit of service of the June order in the record, but they do not dispute that their deadline to file a notice of appeal was August 29, 2011, which they exceeded by almost five months. Concur—Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

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

Panasia Estate, Inc. v. Broche, 103 A.D.3d 426, 959 N.Y.S.2d 190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

103 A.D.3d 426 (Panasia Estate, Inc. v. Broche) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

de Lara Nunez v. CCNY Constr., Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 06359 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Twin Bay Vil., Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 4405 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Tai v. Broche
115 A.D.3d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)