M Entertainment, Inc. v. Leydier
| Decision Date | 27 October 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 208 SSM 31,208 SSM 31 |
| Parties | M ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Appellants v. LAURENCE LEYDIER, Respondent, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to that Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.
The Appellate Division erred in concluding that plaintiffs' noncompliance with the requirement that mail service be accomplished by mailing "within the state" (see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; [f] [1]) constituted a "fatal jurisdictional defect" requiring the dismissal of plaintiffs' appeal against Lawrence Leydier. CPLR 5520 (a) provides:
"If an appellant either serves or files a timely notice of appeal or notice of motion for permission to appeal, but neglects through mistake or excusable neglect to do another required act within the time limited, the court from or to which the appeal is taken or the court of original instance may grant an extension of time for curing the omission."
Plaintiffs here timely filed their notice of appeal with the New York County Clerk's office, thus authorizing the Appellate Division to determine whether to exercise its discretion pursuant to CPLR 5520 (a). By contrast, the movants in Cipriani v Green (96 NY2d 821 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 639 [2001]) and National Org. for Women v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (70 NY2d 939 [1988], rearg denied 71 NY2d 890 [1988]) not only failed to timely serve their notices of motion for leave to appeal, but they also failed to timely file those papers with this Court. Thus, in those cases, the Court could not invoke its discretionary authority under CPLR 5520 (a).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cmty. Hous. Improvement Program v. Comm'r Labor
...159 A.D.3d 1393, 1394, 73 N.Y.S.3d 316 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see M Entertainment, Inc. v. Leydier, 13 N.Y.3d 827, 828–829, 891 N.Y.S.2d 6, 919 N.E.2d 177 [2009] ; AXA Equit. Life Ins. Co. v. Kalina, 101 A.D.3d 1655, 1657, 956 N.Y.S.2d 743 [2012] ; Matter o......
-
Wash. Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. ex rel. Vernon v. Oudekerk
...924 [2011] ; Matter of Malik v. Coughlin, 127 A.D.2d 948, 949, 512 N.Y.S.2d 548 [1987] ; see also M Entertainment, Inc. v. Leydier, 13 N.Y.3d 827, 828–829, 891 N.Y.S.2d 6, 919 N.E.2d 177 [2009] ).The record before us does not contain a notice of appeal, with the father instead providing a "......
-
Andersen v. Young & Rubicam, Inc.
...of appeal, but fails to satisfy a companion requirement due to mistake or excusable neglect. C.P.L.R. § 5520(a); M Entertainment, Inc. v. Leydier, 13 N.Y.3d 827, 828 (2009); Matter of Steven S., 234 A.D.2d 13, 14 (1st Dep't 1996). Since plaintiff never filed a notice of appeal from the judg......
-
Gibbs v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...Co. v. Kalina, 101 A.D.3d 1655, 1657, 956 N.Y.S.2d 743 [4th Dept. 2012], quoting CPLR 5520[a] ; see M Entertainment, Inc. v. Leydier, 13 N.Y.3d 827, 828–829, 891 N.Y.S.2d 6, 919 N.E.2d 177 [2009] ). Here, 92 N.Y.S.3d 833plaintiff neglected to serve former counsel with the notice of appeal, ......
-
Dependent upon the kindness of strangers: the circumstances in which a non-appellant may be awarded affirmative relief in the New York Courts.
...285 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2005). (2) N.Y.C.P.L.R. 5513(a) (McKinney 2010); 5515(1) (McKinney 2009). (3) M Entertainment, Inc. v. Leydier, 13 N.Y.3d 827, 919 N.E.2d 177, 891 N.Y.S.2d 6 (4) N.Y. C.P.L.R. 2103(b)(6) (McKinney 2010). (5) N.Y.C.P.L.R. 2103(b)(2). (6) N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5513(d). For a f......