Rye Town/King Civic Ass'n v. Town of Rye

439 N.E.2d 397, 56 N.Y.2d 985, 453 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3534
New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 17, 1982·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

opinion of the court

Memorandum.

The motion for leave to appeal should be dismissed as untimely.

A party who has mistaken the method for obtaining appellate review is entitled to a 30-day extension of time within which to pursue the proper method of appeal (CPLR 5514, subd [a]). In such circumstances, however, an adverse party who initially did not either appeal as of right under CPLR 5513 (subd [a]), or move for leave to appeal under CPLR 5513 (subd [b]), or cross-appeal or cross-move for leave to appeal under CPLR 5513 (subd [c]), may not avail itself of the 10-day extension provided by CPLR 5513 (subd [c]).

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed in a memorandum, with twenty dollars costs and necessary reproduction disbursements to intervenor-respondent.

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

Rye Town/King Civic Ass'n v. Town of Rye, 439 N.E.2d 397, 56 N.Y.2d 985, 453 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3534 (N.Y. 1982).

439 N.E.2d 397 (Rye Town/King Civic Ass'n v. Town of Rye) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Oak Beach v. Lehman
100 A.D.2d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Badura v. Guelli
94 A.D.2d 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)