From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coonradt v. Averill Park Central School Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 13, 1979
73 A.D.2d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

Opinion

December 13, 1979


Motion by appellants pursuant to rules of practice, 22 NYCRR 800.12 granted, without costs, and the clerk is directed to file appellants' record and brief received on August 31, 1979. Cross motion by respondents to dismiss the appeal as untimely taken pursuant to CPLR 5513 (subd [a]) denied, without costs. According to respondents' attorney, the order sought to be appealed, together with notice of entry, was served on appellants' attorney by mail on May 31, 1978. However, the affidavit of service by respondents' attorney's employee, submitted in support of the cross motion, is insufficient in that it does not state that the affiant herself mailed the letter enclosing the order, nor does it recite that the letter was mailed to appellants' attorney at his designated address in the manner specified by CPLR 2103 (subd [b], par 2). Accordingly, respondents have not established that the order was properly served by mail on May 31, 1978 thereby commencing appellants' time to appeal as of that date (see Anthony v. Schofield, 265 App. Div. 423; cf. 14 Second Ave. Realty Corp. v. Szalay, 16 A.D.2d 919). Mahoney, P.J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Coonradt v. Averill Park Central School Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 13, 1979
73 A.D.2d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)
Case details for

Coonradt v. Averill Park Central School Dist

Case Details

Full title:MARY D. COONRADT et al., Respondents, v. AVERILL PARK CENTRAL SCHOOL…

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

Date published: Dec 13, 1979

Citations

73 A.D.2d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

Citing Cases

Watt v. New York City Transit Authority

In the instant case, however, the original affidavit of service was later discredited in an affidavit by the…

Metzger v. Esseks

Defendants argue the court improperly exercised its discretion in vacating plaintiffs' default on the basis…