Tzortzis v. County of Los Alamos, 11297
| Decision Date | 18 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 11297,11297 |
| Citation | 773 P.2d 363,1989 NMCA 31,108 N.M. 418 |
| Parties | Constantine TZORTZIS, Claimant-Appellee, v. COUNTY OF LOS ALAMOS, and the New Mexico Self-Insurer's Fund, Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Claimant has moved to dismiss respondents' appeal from a final disposition order of the Workmen's Compensation Administration dated January 18, 1989. Claimant contends that the notice of appeal filed with this court on February 21, 1989, was untimely. We agree.
Respondents rely on NMSA 1978, Section 52-5-8(A) (Repl.Pamp.1987), which reads: "Any party in interest may, within thirty days of mailing of the final order of the hearing officer, file a notice of appeal with the court of appeals." (Emphasis added.) On the other hand, SCRA 1986, 12-601(A) provides in pertinent part: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, direct appeals from orders, decisions or actions of boards, commissions, administrative agencies or officials shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal * * * within thirty (30) days from the date of the order, decision or action appealed from." (Emphasis added.) When a statute governing the time for appeal conflicts with a supreme court rule, the rule governs. See American Auto. Ass'n v. State Corp. Comm'n, 102 N.M. 527, 697 P.2d 946 (1985); James v. New Mexico Human Servs. Dep't, Income Support Div., 106 N.M. 318, 742 P.2d 530 (Ct.App.1987).
Respondents could have sought an extension of time from this court pursuant to SCRA 1986, 12-201(E)(2) and -601(B), but the time for such a request has expired. See SCRA 1986, 12-201(E)(4). It is therefore ordered that claimant-appellee's motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schultz ex rel. Schultz v. Pojoaque Tribal Police Dept.
...only requires that an appellant serve the WCA with a copy of his notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals); Tzortzis v. County of Los Alamos, 108 N.M. 418, 773 P.2d 363 (Ct.App.1989) (time limit for filing a notice of appeal runs from the date of the order pursuant to Rule 12-601(A), not ma......
-
Maples v. State
...of permitting review on the merits to uphold the court's jurisdiction; it distinguished the earlier case of Tzortzis v. County of Los Alamos, 108 N.M. 418, 773 P.2d 363 (Ct.App.1989), which dealt with the same issue as the present case and disposed of it in the same way as did the court of ......
-
Massengill v. Sand
...Section 52–5–8. Maples, 1990–NMSC–042, ¶ 10, 110 N.M. 34, 791 P.2d 788;see Tzortzis v. Cnty. of Los Alamos, 1989–NMCA–031, ¶ 2, 108 N.M. 418, 773 P.2d 363 (holding that “[w]hen a statute governing the time for appeal conflicts with a supreme court rule, the rule governs”). {11} Section 52–5......
-
Massengill v. Fisher Sand & Gravel Co.
...over any conflict with Section 52-5-8. Maples, 1990-NMSC-042, ¶ 10; see Tzortzis v. Cnty. of Los Alamos, 1989-NMCA-031, ¶ 2, 108 N.M. 418, 773 P.2d 363 (holding that "[w]hen a statute governing thetime for appeal conflicts with a supreme court rule, the rule governs").{11} Section 52-5-7(C)......