Park East Corp. v. Whalen

345 N.E.2d 289, 38 N.Y.2d 559, 381 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2266
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 15, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 345 N.E.2d 289 (Park East Corp. v. Whalen) 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
Park East Corp. v. Whalen, 345 N.E.2d 289, 38 N.Y.2d 559, 381 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2266 (N.Y. 1976).

Opinion

[560]*560Memorandum. Appellant filed a notice of appeal, as of right, 36 days after the date of the denial by the Appellate Division of leave to appeal but within 30 days after service of a copy of the order denying leave with written notice of entry.

Literally and out of context, CPLR 5514 (subd [a]) seems to require computation of the time to take an alternative method of appeal to begin on the date of the denial or dismissal of the first attempted appeal. However, we interpret CPLR 5514 (subd [a]) similarly to the provision for all other appeal time limitations, so as to require computation of the time allowed to begin upon service of a copy of the order terminating the first attempted appeal with written notice of its entry. Such interpretation evidently conforms to the intention of the Legislature and harmonizes this statue’s requirements with those of CPLR 5513 where service of a copy of the order with written notice of entry was deliberately adopted upon the recommendation of the Judicial Conference CPLR Advisory Committee (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 5513, Supplementary Practice Commentary for 1970 by Donald Zimmerman, Pocket Part [1975-1976], at pp 248-249). Moreover, this achieves a uniform rule governing commencement of time requirements affecting appeals and it eliminates unnecessary procedural traps for the unwary while simultaneously insuring notification of termination of the first appeal attempt (contra, Dayon v Downe Communications, 42 AD2d 889).

[561]*561Thus, we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal for untimeliness. Furthermore, the order appealed from is final and reviewable.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied in a memorandum.

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

Related

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Hillaire
2026 NY Slip Op 00353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
Matter of Rahman v. Galioto
2024 NY Slip Op 05172 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Sawma v. Bane
197 A.D.2d 938 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
American Banana Co. v. Venezolana Internacional de Aviacion S.A.
69 A.D.2d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
County of Franklin v. Connelie
64 A.D.2d 948 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
345 N.E.2d 289, 38 N.Y.2d 559, 381 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/park-east-corp-v-whalen-ny-1976.