People v. Hail Fellows, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hail Fellows, Inc.

23 A.D.2d 734, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4440

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

DecidedApril 13, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.2d 734 (People v. Hail Fellows, Inc.) 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

People v. Hail Fellows, Inc., 23 A.D.2d 734, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Under subdivision 4 of rule V (part 1) of the Rules of the First Department, the record on appeal in this case was required to have been filed within 30 days after service of the notice of appeal. In Tonkonogy v. Jaffin (21 A D 2d 264) this court made it unmistakably clear that the rules with reference to time limitations for perfecting appeals are intended to be obeyed and followed. Failure to comply with the rules makes the appeal subject to dismissal in the discretion of the court. In Tonkonogy we said (p. 266): “ In order that such discretion may properly be exercised, the court is entitled to be fully advised as to the reasons for a delay in the prosecution of the appeal and as to the merits of the appeal”. Although the delay here was not inordinate, appellant nevertheless was required to excuse even the short delay. No affidavit was submitted as to any excuse, but in a memorandum appellant’s attorney states that failure to comply- with the rules “ has been due only to the fault of .the appellant’s attorney, and has not been deliberate ”. Such a perfunctory scanty statement is inadequate as an excuse. In addition, there is no satisfactory showing of any merit to the appeal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

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

Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Under subdivision 4 of rule V (part 1) of the Rules of the First Department, the record on appeal in this case was required to have been filed within 30 days after service of the notice of appeal. In Tonkonogy v. Jaffin (21 A D 2d 264) this court made it unmistakably clear that the rules with reference to time limitations for perfecting appeals are intended to be obeyed and followed. Failure to comply with the rules makes the appeal subject to dismissal in the discretion of the court. In Tonkonogy we said (p. 266): “ In order that such discretion may properly be exercised, the court is entitled to be fully advised as to the reasons for a delay in the prosecution of the appeal and as to the merits of the appeal”. Although the delay here was not inordinate, appellant nevertheless was required to excuse even the short delay. No affidavit was submitted as to any excuse, but in a memorandum appellant’s attorney states that failure to comply- with the rules “ has been due only to the fault of .the appellant’s attorney, and has not been deliberate ”. Such a perfunctory scanty statement is inadequate as an excuse. In addition, there is no satisfactory showing of any merit to the appeal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 734, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hail-fellows-inc-nyappdiv-1965.