Opinion
December 15, 1977
Motion by appellants for leave to file record and brief beyond the one-year period specified by 22 NYCRR 800.12 of the Rules of Practice. The moving papers indicate that the decree which appellants seek to have reviewed was entered on May 7, 1976. The appeal from this decree was therefore deemed abandoned when a record and brief were not served by July 1, 1977 (see Hobbs v State of New York, 53 A.D.2d 998). Pursuant to section 800.12, the court may order the clerk to accept a record and brief for filing beyond the one-year period upon a showing of reasonable excuse for the delay and facts demonstrating merit to the appeal. In the instant matter, appellants' only excuse for the delay is the fact that certain attorneys and paralegals who were working on the appeal either went on vacation or left the firm following the filing of the notice of appeal. This can hardly be considered a "reasonable excuse" under section 800.12 especially when it is noted that the record on the proposed appeal would be substantially the same as that filed on the prior appeal in this case (Matter of Bazarnicki, 44 A.D.2d 871). In addition, it appears that appellants' brief on the prior appeal contained extensive argumentation on the only issue to be considered on this appeal (i.e., whether decedent had made a gift to respondent Ruckey). Under these circumstances, the appeal should have been promptly perfected. Finally, appellants' conclusory statements in the moving papers are inadequate to satisfy the requirement of section 800.12 that facts be set forth showing merit to the appeal. Motion denied, without costs, and appeal dismissed. Greenblott, J.P., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.