IN THE MATTER OF TAGLIAFERRI v. Weiler
| Decision Date | 12 February 2004 |
| Parties | In the Matter of SILVAN TAGLIAFERRI, Doing Business as CASTLE HILL HOMES, Respondent, v. CHARLES G. WEILER et al., Constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Hempstead, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
C. Robinson, Thompson & Associates, LLP, New York City (Michael L. Moriello of counsel), for appellants. Minerva & D'Agostino, P.C., Valley Stream (Dominick M. Minerva of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to that Court for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum.
CPLR 2001 provides that, "[a]t any stage of an action," absent prejudice of a "substantial right of a party," the court shall disregard a "mistake, omission, defect or irregularity." The attorneys for the Village of Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals, its members, and the Village (collectively, Village respondents) recited in the text of the notice of appeal that the law firm was appealing; however, in the final signature section the notice of appeal listed the firm name and was signed by a firm attorney as "Attorneys for Respondents-Appellants." In accordance with CPLR 2001, the Appellate Division should have disregarded the clerical error in the text of the notice of appeal and treated the appeal as taken by the Village respondents (see e.g. Broughton v Dona, 63 AD2d 1101, 1101 [1978],
lv denied 47 NY2d 709 [1979]). Further, the Village respondents timely served and filed the notice of appeal. Petitioner indisputably understood that the Village respondents, and not their law firm, were the intended appellants. Accordingly, no substantial right of petitioner has been or will be prejudiced if the appeal goes forward (see Bracken v Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 251 AD2d 1068, 1069 [1998]).
The Appellate Division's reliance on Scopelliti v Town of New Castle (92 NY2d 944 [1998]) is misplaced. There, the Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court order dismissing plaintiff's complaint and imposed sanctions on plaintiff's attorney (see Scopelliti v Town of New Castle, 243 AD2d 701 [1997]
). Plaintiff's motion to this Court addressed both the dismissal of his complaint and the sanctions award against his attorney. Because plaintiff was the only named movant in the notice of motion and nothing in the notice of motion or the supporting papers indicated that anyone other than plaintiff was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuller & D'Angelo, P.C. v. Cornerstone Hospitality Advisors
...omission from plaintiff's motion. C.P.L.R. § 2001; Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Co., 62 A.D.3d 573, 574 (1st Dep't 2009). See Tagliaferri v. Weiler, 1 N.Y.3d 605, 606 (2004); Caceres v. Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 37 A.D.3d 215 (1st Dep't 2007).III. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS As set forth above, the c......
-
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB v. Matamoro
...of a party is not prejudiced, the mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity shall be disregarded (see Matter of Tagliaferri v. Weiler, 1 N.Y.3d 605, 606, 775 N.Y.S.2d 753, 807 N.E.2d 864 ; Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC v. Morsello, 97 A.D.3d 611, 612, 948 N.Y.S.2d 3......
-
Better World Real Estate Grp. v.
...in reasoning or judgment ( see Black's Law Dictionary [9th ed. 2009], clerical error; see generally Matter of Tagliaferri v. Weiler, 1 N.Y.3d 605, 606, 775 N.Y.S.2d 753, 807 N.E.2d 864 [holding that, pursuant to CPLR 2001, the Appellate Division should have disregarded the “clerical error” ......
-
Northacker v. Cnty. of Ulster
...by that defect, we disregard it and treat the appeal as having been taken by both (see CPLR 2001 ; Matter of Tagliaferri v. Weiler, 1 N.Y.3d 605, 606, 775 N.Y.S.2d 753, 807 N.E.2d 864 [2004] ; Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Moreau Assessor, 46 A.D.3d 1147, 1148 n 2, 847 N.Y......