You are here: / / Appeals Not Pursued for a Decade or More Properly Dismissed
, ,

Appeals Not Pursued for a Decade or More Properly Dismissed

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined, with respect to three of four defendants, dismissal of the appeals was appropriate. The appeals were not pursued for more than a decade, in one case more than two decades, after the filing of the notices of appeal, and the excuses for inaction were found insufficient.  With respect to the fourth defendant, counsel had never reviewed the record. Therefore, defendant’s right to appellate counsel had not been honored. The matter was sent back for the appointment of appellate counsel and submissions, after which the motion to dismiss the appeal could be properly considered.  People v Perez, 2014 NY Slip Op 02326, CtApp 4-3-13

 

You might also like
General Permit System by Which Smaller Communities Obtain Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Does Not Violate Federal or State Law
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL, DESPITE COUNSEL’S LIMITED COMMUNICATION WITH DEFENDANT, COUNSEL’S NOT ACTING UNTIL THE APPEAL WAS ON THE DISMISSAL CALENDAR, AND COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION OF A MINIMAL BRIEF WITH SIX LINES OF TEXT IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND NO CITATIONS TO THE RECORD, WHICH INCLUDED A 4000 PAGE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (CT APP)
Issuer of Excess Policy Was Required (by the Terms of the Policy) to Pay “All Sums,” Including Interest, Over and Above the Policy-Limit Paid Out Under the Primary Policy
LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDERS MUST REGISTER UNDER SORA FOR 20 YEARS; LOW RISK-LEVEL SEX OFFENDERS WHO WERE REGISTERED IN ANOTHER STATE AND WHO RELOCATE TO NEW YORK ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR THE TIME THEY WERE REGISTERED OUT-OF-STATE (CT APP).
Proof at Trial Did Not Sufficiently Pinpoint Time of the Alleged Sexual Offenses—Convictions Vacated
THE MAJORITY HELD SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION BECAUSE COUNTERCLAIMS WERE STILL BEFORE THE COURT (CT APP).
Question of Fact Whether a “Special Relationship” Had Developed Such that the Insurance Broker Might Be Liable for Negligent Advice About Coverage
RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT ENTERED, BURGLARY (ENTRY OF DWELLING) CONVICTION REVERSED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Notice Requirements for a Nonparty Subpoena Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4) Explained/Criteria... No Credit for Civilian Service Under Post December 19, 1990, Tier 3 CO-20 Retirement...