Catch Me If You Can: The importance of an up-to-date address for Service of Process.

Posted on October 26, 2023 by Richard Klass

computer keyboard and smart phone with text on screen saying "register information"

The defendant corporation was served with the Summons and Complaint through the New York Secretary of State, as reflected in the affidavit of service. As reflected in the certificate of service from the NYS Secretary of State, the defendant was served by certified mail at its designated address for service of process. A letter with copies of the Summons and Complaint was mailed to the defendant’s address. Thereafter, the motion for a default judgment was filed with the court and a copy thereof was served upon the defendant. None of the letters were returned. Based upon the defendant’s default, the court entered the Default Judgment.

Motion to vacate Default Judgment

The defendant corporation brought an Order to Show Cause seeking to vacate its default in answering the Summons and Complaint. The motion, brought pursuant to CPLR 5015(a), claimed that the defendant had both a reasonable excuse for the defendant’s failure in defaulting in answering the action and a meritorious defense. Attached to the motion was the affidavit of the corporation’s principal, who stated his reasons why the defendant did not respond to the action; namely, he claimed that he never received the Summons and Complaint or any of the mailings sent by the attorney’s office. The plaintiff’s attorney retained Richard A. Klass, Esq., Your Court Street Lawyer, to oppose the Order to Show Cause and request that the Default Judgment remain intact and enforceable.

Service of process under Business Corporation Law Section 306

CPLR 311(a)(1) delineates the methods of service of process upon a corporation as follows: “upon any domestic or foreign corporation, to an officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service. A business corporation may also be served pursuant to section three hundred six or three hundred seven of the business corporation law….”

The plaintiff used the method of service duly authorized by Business Corporation Law Section 306,[1] by having the Summons and Complaint served upon the NYS Secretary of State. The defendant could not challenge that service was made upon the NYS Secretary of State since the plaintiff was entitled to the well-established presumption of due service. See, Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v Quinones, 114 AD3d 719, 719 [2d Dept 2014] (“A process server’s affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service (see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Westervelt, 105 A.D.3d 896, 897, 964 N.Y.S.2d 543; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Chaplin, 65 A.D.3d 588, 589, 884 N.Y.S.2d 254; Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Albert, 78 A.D.3d 983, 984, 912 N.Y.S.2d 96).”)

The Second Department, in Wassertheil v Elburg, LLC, 94 AD3d 753, 753-54 [2d Dept 2012], enunciated the standard required to vacate a default based upon service of process upon the NYS Secretary of State:

To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment based on the failure to appear or timely serve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its delay and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015[a][1]; Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141, 501 N.Y.S.2d 8, 492 N.E.2d 116; 2261 Palmer Ave. Corp. v. Malick, 91 A.D.3d 853, 936 N.Y.S.2d 672; Kouzios v. Dery, 57 A.D.3d 949, 871 N.Y.S.2d 303; Baldwin v. Mateogarcia, 57 A.D.3d 594, 869 N.Y.S.2d 217). Here, the mere denial by Encore’s shareholder of service of the summons and the complaint was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service on the Secretary of State raised by the affidavit of service (see Business Corporation Law § 306 [b] [1]; Matter of Rockland Bakery, Inc. v. B.M. Baking Co., Inc., 83 A.D.3d 1080, 1081–1082, 923 N.Y.S.2d 572; Thas v. Dayrich Trading, Inc., 78 A.D.3d 1163, 1164, 913 N.Y.S.2d 269; May v. Hartsdale Manor Owners Corp., 73 A.D.3d 713, 900 N.Y.S.2d 359).

Based upon case law, a defendant’s mere denial of receipt of mail is insufficient. In his affidavit, the defendant’s principal surmised that he may not have received any notification from the Secretary of State as a result of the Governor’s Executive Orders concerning the pandemic pausing government services, and there could be a backlog. This was mere conjecture, and it was urged that the ‘pandemic excuse’ should be of no assistance to him. In addition to the failure to rebut the presumption of due service via the Secretary of State, there was no evidence to rebut the presumption of mailing from both the Secretary of State and the attorney’s office. See, Vita v Heller, 97 AD2d 464, 464 [2d Dept 1983] (“Service of papers by mail is deemed complete upon deposit of such papers in the mail and such manner of service creates a presumption of proper mailing to the addressee (CPLR 2103, subd. [b], par. 2; A & B Serv. Sta. v. State of New York, 50 A.D.2d 973, 376 N.Y.S.2d 656, mot. for lv. to app. den. 39 N.Y.2d 709, 386 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 352 N.E.2d 597). The burden then falls upon the addressee to present evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption and establish nonreceipt.”). Further, the denial of receipt of the Summons and Complaint from the Secretary of State was belied by the certificate of service.

Corporation must update its address with the Department of State

The defendant also stated that he had not lived at the mailing address of 1501 55th Street, Brooklyn NY (one of the mailing addresses designated by the corporation and to which additional mailings were made in this action) since 2008. However, the last two Biennial Statements filed by the corporation for the filing periods for 2009-2011 and 2011-2013 state the “Service of Process Address” at “1501 55th Street, Brooklyn NY 11228.” It was argued that the Court should also note that the 2013 Biennial Statement for the corporation is the LAST one filed with the Secretary of State’s office and its statement status is listed as “Past Due.”

In Cedeno v Wimbledon Bldg. Corp., 207 AD2d 297, 298 [1st Dept 1994], the court rejected the defendant’s claim that he vacated the address for service of process designated eight years earlier, holding:

Service was effected in person at the office of the Secretary of State, and by mail directed to defendant’s designated agent at an office location that counsel says he vacated eight years earlier. Defendant maintains that minimal diligence on plaintiff’s part would have led him to counsel’s correct address. But it is a corporation’s obligation to keep on file with the Secretary of State the current address of an agent to receive service of process (Cristo Bros. v. M. Cristo, Inc., 91 A.D.2d 807, 458 N.Y.S.2d 50), and failure to meet that obligation will not constitute reasonable excuse to vacate a default judgment (Conte Cadillac v. C.A.R.S. Purch. Serv., 126 A.D.2d 621, 622, 511 N.Y.S.2d 58). It is for this reason that service of process on a corporation is deemed complete when the Secretary of State is served, regardless of whether such process ultimately reaches the corporate defendant (Associated Imports v. Leon Amiel Publ., 168 A.D.2d 354, 562 N.Y.S.2d 678, lv. dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 873, 568 N.Y.S.2d 915, 571 N.E.2d 85).

In Crespo v A.D.A. Mgt., 292 AD2d 5, 9-10 [1st Dept 2002], the court held, “The failure of a corporate defendant to receive service of process due to breach of the obligation to keep a current address on file with the Secretary of State (see, Business Corporation Law § 306) does not constitute a reasonable excuse. (Lawrence v. Esplanade Gardens, 213 A.D.2d 216, 623 N.Y.S.2d 586; Cedeno v. Wimbledon Bldg. Corp., supra at 298, 615 N.Y.S.2d 40.)”

No need to address the Defendant’s purported meritorious defense

Regardless of whether the defendant would have had any defense to the action, it was argued that it could not present one now since there was no excuse for its default. In Mellon v Izmirligil, 88 AD3d 930, 931-32 [2d Dept 2011], the court held:

Since the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default, it is unnecessary to determine whether he demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cervini, 84 A.D.3d at 790, 921 N.Y.S.2d 643; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roldan, 80 A.D.3d 566, 567, 914 N.Y.S.2d 647; Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. McGown, 77 A.D.3d at 890; Star Indus., Inc. v. Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 A.D.3d at 905, 866 N.Y.S.2d 357).

Based upon the arguments put forth in opposition, the court denied the Order to Show Cause and the Default Judgment was upheld.

— Richard A. Klass, Esq.

[1] (b)(1) Service of process on the secretary of state as agent of a domestic or authorized foreign corporation shall be made by personally delivering to and leaving with the secretary of state or a deputy, or with any person authorized by the secretary of state to receive such service, at the office of the department of state in the city of Albany, duplicate copies of such process together with the statutory fee, which fee shall be a taxable disbursement. Service of process on such corporation shall be complete when the secretary of state is so served. The secretary of state shall promptly send one of such copies by certified mail, return receipt requested, to such corporation, at the post office address, on file in the department of state, specified for the purpose. If a domestic or authorized foreign corporation has no such address on file in the department of state, the secretary of state shall so mail such copy, in the case of a domestic corporation, in care of any director named in its certificate of incorporation at the director’s address stated therein or, in the case of an authorized foreign corporation, to such corporation at the address of its office within this state on file in the department.

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

keywords:
#litigation #service #process #affidavit #default #CourtStreetLawyer

Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation at 16 Court Street, 28th Floor, Brooklyn, New York. He may be reached at (718) COURT●ST or RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.comcreate new email with any questions.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Next post
Previous post

The defendant established, prima facie, that he was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged damages.

Posted on August 29, 2023 by Richard Klass

In Casey v Exum, 2023 NY Slip Op 04106 [2d Dept Aug. 2, 2023], the court held that a client’s malpractice action was dismissed based on speculation, holding:

A plaintiff in an action alleging legal malpractice must prove the defendant attorney’s failure to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession proximately caused the plaintiff to suffer damages (see Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d 438, 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385; Sang Seok NA v. Schietroma, 163 A.D.3d 597, 598, 79 N.Y.S.3d 636). “A defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing a legal malpractice cause of action has the burden of establishing prima facie that he or she did not fail to exercise such skill and knowledge, or that the claimed departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff to sustain damages” (Provenzano v. Cellino & Barnes, P.C., 207 A.D.3d 763, 764, 170 N.Y.S.3d 910 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Bakcheva v. Law Offs. of Stein & Assoc., 169 A.D.3d 624, 625, 93 N.Y.S.3d 388). If the defendant meets that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact. To establish proximate causation, the plaintiff must show that she would have prevailed in the underlying action or would not have incurred any damages, but for the defendant attorney’s negligence (see Rudolf v. Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer, 8 N.Y.3d at 442, 835 N.Y.S.2d 534, 867 N.E.2d 385; Schiller v. Bender, Burrows & Rosenthal, LLP, 116 A.D.3d 756, 757, 983 N.Y.S.2d 594). “ ‘Mere speculation about a loss resulting from an attorney’s alleged omission is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case of legal malpractice’ ” (Alaimo v. Mongelli, 93 A.D.3d 742, 743, 940 N.Y.S.2d 669, quoting Humbert v. Allen, 89 A.D.3d 804, 806, 932 N.Y.S.2d 155).

Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that he was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged damages (see Richmond Holdings, LLC v. David S. Frankel, P.C., 150 A.D.3d 1168, 1168, 52 N.Y.S.3d 672; Montero v. Cohen, 104 A.D.3d 654, 655, 960 N.Y.S.2d 468). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s claims that the defendant could have negotiated a more favorable settlement, that her former spouse would have accepted a settlement offer that was more favorable to her, or that she would have received a more favorable outcome at trial had she declined to enter into the settlement are conclusory and speculative (see Katsoris v. Bodnar & Milone, LLP, 186 A.D.3d 1504, 1506, 131 N.Y.S.3d 89; Janker v. Silver, Forrester & Lesser, P.C., 135 A.D.3d 908, 910, 24 N.Y.S.3d 182).

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #litigation #legalmalpractice

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Next post
Previous post

Dismissal of action on statute of limitations grounds

Posted on January 10, 2023 by Richard Klass

In Kreutzberg v Law Offices of John Riconda, P.C., 210 AD3d 884, 884-85 [2d Dept 2022], the court upheld the dismissal of the client’s action on statute of limitations grounds, holding:

On a motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to sue has expired (see Van Der Velde v New York Prop. Underwriting Assn., 205 AD3d 970, 971 [2022]; Joseph v Fensterman, 204 AD3d 766, 769 [2022]; Tulino v Hiller, P.C., 202 AD3d 1132, 1134-1135 [2022]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Blank, 189 AD3d 1678, 1679 [2020]). “If the defendant satisfies this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise inapplicable, or whether the plaintiff actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations period” (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Blank, 189 AD3d at 1679 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

The statute of limitations for a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice is three years (see CPLR 214 [6]; Tulino v Hiller, P.C., 202 AD3d at 1135), which accrues at the time the malpractice is committed, not when the client discovers it (see Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d 164, 166 [2001]; Goodman v Weiss, Zarett, Brofman, Sonnenklar & Levy, P.C., 199 AD3d 659, 661 [2021]; Sclafani v Kahn, 169 AD3d 846, 848 [2019]).

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #statuteoflimitations

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Next post
Previous post

…negligent in not objecting to the judgment debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding…

Posted on December 5, 2022 by Richard Klass

In Basile v Law Offices of Neal Brickman, P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 06079 [1st Dept Nov. 1, 2022], the court affirmed the denial of the law firm’s motion to dismiss, holding:

The legal malpractice claim may not be barred by the three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214[6]). Plaintiff contends that the claim was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine based on alleged emails and telephone conversations about collecting on plaintiff’s money judgment against the judgment debtor following its entry in 2010, at which time the judgment debtor did not have sufficient assets to satisfy the judgment. Defendants, however, assert that there was no continuous representation because plaintiff had no communication with them concerning collecting on the unsatisfied judgment until August 2019, when the limitations period on the instant claim had expired. These factual contentions concerning whether defendant continued to represent plaintiff during the relevant time period so as to toll the limitations period give rise to factual issues that cannot be resolved in this pre-answer motion to dismiss (see Boesky v. Levine, 193 A.D.3d 403, 147 N.Y.S.3d 2 [1st Dept. 2021]; Johnson v. Law Off. of Kenneth B. Schwartz, 145 A.D.3d 608, 612, 46 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2016]).

Furthermore, the complaint’s allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for legal malpractice. Plaintiff alleges that defendants were negligent in not objecting to the judgment debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding in 2015, which resulted in a discharge order that barred plaintiff from collecting on his money judgment against her. Defendants argue that they did not breach their duty to plaintiff by not intervening in the bankruptcy proceeding because they did not receive notice of the proceeding. Defendants submit the bankruptcy petition, which, in naming plaintiff as a creditor, included an outdated address for defendants and omitted the name of defendants’ law firm or a suite number. These undisputed facts, however, are not sufficient to find as a matter of law that defendants did not breach their duty to plaintiff. Defendants relocated to their new office in September 2014 and the judgment debtor filed her bankruptcy petition in January 2015, three months later. The bankruptcy petition included the name of the attorney who had assisted in plaintiff’s underlying action against the judgment debtor. At the very least, a factual issue exists as to whether the notice of the bankruptcy proceeding to object on plaintiff’s behalf was forwarded to defendants, which cannot be resolved at this juncture. As to proximate cause, contrary to defendants’ contention, proof of the collectability on a judgment is not an essential element of the legal malpractice claim, and arises after the “case within the case” has been proven (Lindenman v. Kreitzer, 7 A.D.3d 30, 35, 775 N.Y.S.2d 4 [1st Dept. 2004]).

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #bankruptcy-proceeding

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post

Sometimes, Litigation Is Like Playing Whac-A-Mole®

Posted on October 7, 2022 by Richard Klass

We pick up and “play it again” where our Spring issue of Law Currents, “Don’t Play it Again, Sam,” left off.

To remind you, here were the facts in that article, concerning actions in 2012 and 2021.

2012 Action

In July 2012 (the “2012 Action”), the plaintiff filed suit in the Civil Court against Defendants. In the 2012 Action, the plaintiff sued for the following: “Action to recover the sum of $18,000, with interest thereon from January 1, 2009, based upon a) mistaken charge to [Plaintiff’s] credit card account by Defendants in the amount of $18,000.00, and Defendants’ failure and refusal to credit said charge back to Plaintiff; b) breach of contract; and c) unjust enrichment.”

In January 2020, after court orders marking the trial date “final,” the Civil Court Judge entered an Order dismissing the 2012 Action. At the hearing, the Court found that the plaintiff “had notice of [the] trial date since November of 2019” and thereafter denied the application for an adjournment of the trial.

2021: Second Action Filed

In March 2021, the plaintiff commenced a new action in the Supreme Court (the “2021 Action”), asserting claims against the defendants relating to a dispute regarding specific charges on his account. He also asserted claims for unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith, injunctive relief, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and declaratory relief. The plaintiff specifically asserted in the complaint that two sets of credit-card charges were erroneously paid, totaling approximately $18,000. In the 2021 Action, the plaintiff’s additional causes of action arose from a nucleus of operative facts that were identical to the ones adjudicated through judgment in the 2012 Action.

Move for Dismissal of the 2021 Action Based on the Doctrine of Res Judicata

The defendants retained Richard A. Klass, Esq., Your Court Street Lawyer, to move for dismissal of the 2021 Action based on the doctrine of res judicata. Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), a cause of action should be dismissed when it “may not be maintained” due to the doctrine of res judicata (also known as “claim preclusion”). In the 2021 Action, the complaint asserted claims for the transactions that had already been adjudicated in the 2012 Action. Under New York’s “transactional analysis approach to res judicata, ‘once a claim is brought to its final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy.”’ In re Hunter, 4 N.Y.3d 260, 269 (2005).

2021 Action Dismissed

The Supreme Court Justice granted the motion to dismiss the 2021 Action. In his decision, the judge held: “The Court observes that the doctrine [of res judicata] ‘precludes litigation of matters that could or should have been raised in a prior proceeding between the parties arising from the same factual grouping, transactions or series of transactions.’ (see, DeSanto Construction Corporation v. Royal Insurance Company, 278 AD2d 357 [2nd Dept. 2000].”

Like in Whac-A-Mole, the Matter Pops Up Again.
Notice of Appeal of Civil Court Order Filed February, 2020.

As mentioned above, the Civil Court Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s 2012 Action. The plaintiff served and filed a Notice of Appeal to the Appellate Term[1], First Department. More than two years had elapsed since the plaintiff filed the Notice of Appeal and he had taken no steps to perfect his appeal.

Motion Made to Dismiss the Appeal

A motion was made to dismiss the appeal since it had not been perfected within the time prescribed by court rule; see, 22 NYCRR 640.6.[2] It was pointed out that relevant case law had held that the appeal “shall” be dismissed. Zetlin v. Hanson Holdings, Inc., 63 A.D.2d 878, 405 N.Y.S.2d 472 (1st Dept 1978) (“[U]ndue delay is presumed if the perfecting of the appeal goes beyond one year”).

The Appeal Dismissed

In the motion papers, it was urged that the appeal be dismissed because more than two years had passed. The appellate court agreed and dismissed the appeal.

Motion Brought to Renew and Reargue (Whac-A-Mole)

After the 2021 Action in the Supreme Court was dismissed, the plaintiff brought a motion to “renew and reargue” the judge’s decision, claiming that the judge was wrong for dismissing the action and should restore the case.

Motion Denied to Renew and Reargue

In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the Supreme Court Justice cited from the well-known case of Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558 (1^st Dept. 1979), which held as to:

1) Reargument:

A motion for reargument, addressed to the discretion of the court, is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law. Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided (Fosdick v Town of Hempstead, 126 N.Y. 651; American Trading Co. v Fish, 87 Misc 2d 193). Nor does reargument serve to provide a party an opportunity to advance arguments different from those tendered on the original application. It may not be employed as a device for the unsuccessful party to assume a different position inconsistent with that taken on the original motion. As was observed by the Court of Appeals in Simpson v Loehmann (21 N.Y.2d 990), “A motion for reargument is not an appropriate vehicle for raising new questions.” Moreover, were we to consider the present motion as one for reargument, it was clearly untimely, since such a motion may not be made after the time to appeal from the original order has expired (Matter of Huie [Furman], 20 N.Y.2d 568, 572; Fitzpatrick v Cook, 58 AD2d 642; Prude v County of Erie, 47 AD2d 111). To hold otherwise would permit circumvention of the prohibition against extending the time to take an appeal from the original order (see 2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 2221.03).

2) Renewal:

An application for leave to renew must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made but were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew, and, therefore, not made known to the court. Renewal should be denied where the party fails to offer a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts upon the original application. (Ecco High Frequency Corp. v Amtorg Trading Corp., 81 NYS2d 897, affd 274 App Div 982, rearg and app den 274 App Div 1056; Matter of Holad v MVAIC, 53 Misc 2d 952; American Trading Co. v Fish, supra.) Nor should the remedy be available where a party has proceeded on one legal theory on the assumption that what has been submitted is sufficient, and thereafter sought to move again on a different legal argument merely because he was unsuccessful upon the original application.

The Supreme Court Justice held that: “The plaintiff has not established that the Court misunderstood any issue of fact or misapplied any principal of law.”

_____

Endnotes

[1] Appeals of New York City Civil Court orders and judgments are made to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court. The First Department covers those appeals emanating from the Civil Courts for the Bronx and New York Counties.

[2] 22 NYCRR 640.6.

(a) Appeals from the Civil Court.

(1) Appellant shall procure the clerk’s return pursuant to section 1704 of the New York City Civil Court Act to be filed within 30 days after the filing of the notice of appeal.

(2) Fifteen days before the first day of each term, the clerk of the Appellate Term shall cause a calendar to be published in the New York Law Journal of all appeals in which the clerk’s return has been filed since the last publication of such a calendar. The appeals shall be listed in the order that the returns are received and the date each return was filed shall be stated. The publication of the calendar shall serve as notice to the parties of the filing of the return.

(3) Within 60 days after the filing of the return either party may notice the appeal for argument:

(i) If noticed by appellant, the appellant shall file a notice of argument at least 53 days before the first day of the term for which the appeal shall have been noticed, together with the following: proof of service thereof; five copies of the record or appendix with proof of service of one copy, if the appeal is to be heard on copies of the record or appendix; five copies of appellant’s brief with proof of service of one copy; and such exhibits or copies thereof as are not included in the record or return, unless such exhibits are in the possession of the respondent. At least 31 days before the beginning of the term, respondent shall file five copies of the answering brief with proof of service of one copy and such exhibits or copies thereof not required to be filed by appellant. Five copies of a reply brief with proof of service of one copy may be filed at least 24 days before the first day of the term for which the appeal shall have been noticed.

(ii) The respondent may notice the appeal for argument by serving and filing a notice of argument at least 68 days before the first day of the term for which respondent shall notice the appeal with proof of service. At least 53 days before the first day of the term, unless the court otherwise directs, appellant shall file five copies of appellant’s brief with proof of service of one copy of the brief. Where appellant so files, respondent may serve and file an answering brief at least 31 days before the first day of the term. If appellant fails to serve and file the brief and fails to appear on the call of the calendar, the court may affirm the judgment or order appealed from or, in its discretion, dismiss the appeal with costs upon the call of the calendar. Five copies of a reply brief with proof of service of one copy may be filed 24 days before the first day of such term.

(iii) If neither party notices the appeal for argument within the time prescribed by this section, the appeal shall be dismissed unless for good cause shown an enlargement of time is granted by the court.

Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Your Court Street Lawyer

#CourtStreetLawyer #litigation #whac-a-mole

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

R. A. Klass
Your Court Street Lawyer

Next post
Previous post