Weeden v. Ark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weeden v. Ark

2 A.D.3d 1280, 768 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14250

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 1280 (Weeden v. Ark) 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

Weeden v. Ark, 2 A.D.3d 1280, 768 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

— Original CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced in this Court on April 24, 2003, seeking a writ of mandamus.

It is hereby ordered that said petition be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding, pro se, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling respondent to decide her motion to settle the record on appeal with respect to four underlying actions (see generally Miller v Lanzisera, 273 AD2d 866, 867 [2000], appeal dismissed 95 NY2d 887 [2000], rearg denied 96 NY2d 731 [2001]). Contrary to the contention of petitioner, respondent did in fact decide her motion by denying it. While “[e]very appellant has a clear legal right to settlement of the record” (Matter of Lavar C., 185 AD2d 36, 39 [1992]), that principle presupposes that an appellant has submitted a proposed record in compliance with CPLR 5526 and 22 NYCRR 1000.4, and petitioner failed to do so here. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Original CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced in this Court on April 24, 2003, seeking a writ of mandamus.

It is hereby ordered that said petition be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding, pro se, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling respondent to decide her motion to settle the record on appeal with respect to four underlying actions (see generally Miller v Lanzisera, 273 AD2d 866, 867 [2000], appeal dismissed 95 NY2d 887 [2000], rearg denied 96 NY2d 731 [2001]). Contrary to the contention of petitioner, respondent did in fact decide her motion by denying it. While “[e]very appellant has a clear legal right to settlement of the record” (Matter of Lavar C., 185 AD2d 36, 39 [1992]), that principle presupposes that an appellant has submitted a proposed record in compliance with CPLR 5526 and 22 NYCRR 1000.4, and petitioner failed to do so here. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 1280, 768 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weeden-v-ark-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack