From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oliver v. Alcog

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1989
155 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 15, 1989

Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Memorandum: We deny the motion of defendant-respondent to dismiss the appeal as untimely. Plaintiff-appellant served and filed his notice of appeal 34 days after he served the order by mail upon defendant-respondent. CPLR 2103 (b) (2) provides: "[W]here a period of time prescribed by law is measured from the service of a paper and service is made by mail, five days shall be added to the prescribed period". The period of time prescribed by law for taking an appeal is measured from the service of a copy of the judgment or order with written notice of entry, whether the service is made by the respondent or by the appellant (see, CPLR 5513 [b]). Although the apparent purpose of CPLR 2103 (b) (2) is to give the person to whom a paper is mailed additional time to respond because of the delay from the time of service by mailing to the time of receipt of the paper, the section, by its clear language, does not preclude plaintiff-appellant, who mailed the order and judgment with notice of entry to his opponent, from taking advantage of the section.

Following the literal and unequivocal language of CPLR 2103 (b) (2), the time prescribed for plaintiff-appellant to take his appeal, 30 days from the date of the service of the order and judgment appealed from with notice of entry, was extended for an additional five days because the service of the order and judgment with notice of entry was by mail.


Summaries of

Oliver v. Alcog

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1989
155 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Oliver v. Alcog

Case Details

Full title:DAVID OLIVER et al., Appellants, v. ALCOG et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 15, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

In re Lebron

Given the unavailability of sentencing minutes, however, Supreme Court also directed the Board to presume a…

Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. Halo

We affirm. In our view, it makes no difference whether defendant's own service of Supreme Court's March 3,…