Opinion
2014-1884 S C
04-06-2016
PRESENT: :
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Vincent J. Martorana, J.), dated July 18, 2014. The order denied defendant's motion for leave to file a late demand for a trial de novo.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Following mandatory arbitration (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] part 28) in this action based on a claim for property damage, defendant moved for leave to file a late demand for a trial de novo (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] § 28.12). By order dated July 18, 2014, the District Court denied the motion.
As defendant failed either to serve or to file a timely demand for a trial de novo, his "motion was properly denied, since [t]he time period to serve and file a demand for a trial de novo is not extendable' " (Citibank (SD), N.A. v Boyce , 44 Misc 3d 128[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50981[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014], quoting U.S. Building and Design Inc. v Melia, 2003 NY Slip Op 50847[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]; see Chase v Scalici, 97 AD2d 25 [1983]; cf. Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] § 28.12 [b]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Marano, P.J., Iannacci and Garguilo, JJ., concur. Decision Date: April 06, 2016