Peralta v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peralta v. City of New York

92 A.D.3d 554, 938 N.Y.2d 438

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 21, 2012·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

In its motion papers for reargument of the order denying its motion to dismiss, the City included a copy of the order appealed from, stamped with the date of its entry, and an affirmation by an attorney in support of the motion which referred to the enclosed order. This was sufficient to trigger the 30-day period to take an appeal for both parties (CPLR 5513 [a]; see Norstar Bank of Upstate NY v Office Control Sys., 78 NY2d 1110 [1991]; Matter of Xander Corp. v Haberman, 41 AD3d 489, 490 [2007]; compare Matter of Reynolds v Dustman, 1 NY3d 559 [2003]). Concur — Andrias, J.P, Saxe, Acosta, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

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

In its motion papers for reargument of the order denying its motion to dismiss, the City included a copy of the order appealed from, stamped with the date of its entry, and an affirmation by an attorney in support of the motion which referred to the enclosed order. This was sufficient to trigger the 30-day period to take an appeal for both parties (CPLR 5513 [a]; see Norstar Bank of Upstate NY v Office Control Sys., 78 NY2d 1110 [1991]; Matter of Xander Corp. v Haberman, 41 AD3d 489, 490 [2007]; compare Matter of Reynolds v Dustman, 1 NY3d 559 [2003]). Concur — Andrias, J.P, Saxe, Acosta, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

Peralta v. City of New York, 92 A.D.3d 554, 938 N.Y.2d 438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

92 A.D.3d 554 (Peralta v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related