Pravda v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

286 A.D.2d 838, 730 N.Y.S.2d 746, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9082
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 27, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 838 (Pravda v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles) 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
Pravda v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, 286 A.D.2d 838, 730 N.Y.S.2d 746, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Lahtinen, J.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kane, J.), entered April 26, 2000 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition as, inter alia, untimely, and (2) from an order of said court, entered June 5, 2000 in Albany County, which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

We agree with respondent that petitioner’s appeals must be dismissed. Respondent has demonstrated that a copy of the judgment entered April 26, 2000, together with notice of entry, was served on petitioner on April 26, 2000 pursuant to CPLR 2103 (b). Petitioner’s June 13, 2000 notice of appeal, therefore, is untimely (see, CPLR 5513 [a]) and the appeal from the judgment must be dismissed (see, Matter of Loeber v Teresi, 256 [839]*839AD2d 747, 749-750). Petitioner’s pro se status does not relieve him of the obligation to comply with the time requirements for taking an appeal (see generally, Brooks v Inn at Saratoga Assn., 188 AD2d 921). The May 31, 2000 order denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his petition was, in essence, the denial of a motion to reargue, which is not appealable (see, Matter of Dearstyne v Rensselaer County Dist. Attorney, 262 AD2d 723, lv dismissed 93 NY2d 1036) and did not extend the time to appeal from the underlying judgment (see, Matter of Barnes [Council 82, AFSCME], 235 AD2d 826).

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, without costs.

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

Related

Avgush v. Jerry Fontan, Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 8553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Bell v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp.
90 A.D.3d 1261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Hargett v. Town of Ticonderoga
25 A.D.3d 981 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Davis v. Goord
21 A.D.3d 606 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Aiello v. Manufacturers Life Insurance
298 A.D.2d 662 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Ireland v. Wilenzik
296 A.D.2d 771 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Adalian v. Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc.
288 A.D.2d 789 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
286 A.D.2d 838, 730 N.Y.S.2d 746, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pravda-v-new-york-state-department-of-motor-vehicles-nyappdiv-2001.