PARK EAST CORP. v. WHALEN
Court of Appeals of the State of New York
38 N.Y.2d 559 (N.Y. 1976)
Park East Corp. v. Whalen
38 N.Y.2d 559
MEMORANDUM. Appellant filed a notice of appeal, as of right, 36 days after the date of the denial by the Appellate Division of leave to appeal but within 30 days after service of a copy of the order denying leave with written notice of entry.
Literally and out of context, CPLR 5514 (subd [a]) seems to require computation of the time to take an alternative method of appeal to begin on the date of the denial or dismissal of the first attempted appeal. However, we interpret CPLR 5514 (subd [a]) similarly to the provision for all other appeal time limitations, so as to require computation of the time allowed to begin upon service of a copy of the order terminating the first attempted appeal with written notice of its entry. Such interpretation evidently conforms to the intention of the Legislature and harmonizes this statute's requirements with those of CPLR 5513 where service of a copy of the order with written notice of entry was deliberately adopted upon the recommendation of the Judicial Conference CPLR Advisory Committee (see McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 5513, Supplementary Practice Commentary for 1970 by Donald Zimmerman, Pocket Part [1975-1976], at pp 248-249). Moreover, this achieves a uniform rule governing commencement of time requirements affecting appeals and it eliminates unnecessary procedural traps for the unwary while simultaneously insuring notification of termination of the first appeal attempt (contra, Dayon v Downe Communications, 42 A.D.2d 889).
Thus, we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal for untimeliness. Furthermore, the order appealed from is final and reviewable.
Motion to dismiss appeal denied in a memorandum.
The case of Park East Corp. v. Whalen is provided as part of a free educational service by J. Douglas Barics, attorney at law, for reference only. Cases such as Park East may be overruled by subsequent decisions, different judicial departments may have different controlling case law, and the level of the court deciding each case will determine whether it is controlling law or not. Park East Corp. v. Whalen is presented here to help illustrate how the law works in general, but for specific legal matters, an attorney should be consulted.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Mr. Barics at firstname.lastname@example.org or (631) 864-2600. For more articles and information, please visit www.jdbar.com.