TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

American Banana Co. v. Venezolana Internacional de Aviacion S.A.

American Banana Company, Inc. v. Venezolana Internacional de Aviacion S.A. (VIASA)

Am. Banana Co. v. Venezolana Internacional de Aviacion S.A., 69 A.D.2d 762 (1979)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 3, 1979
Citations
69 A.D.2d 762415 N.Y.S.2d 21979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11372

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of this court, entered January 4, 1979 [ 67 AD2d 613 ] reversing an order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 26, 1978, which granted summary judgment to defendant and denying said motion for summary judgment, is granted. Appellant served plaintiif with the notice of motion for leave to appeal 31 days after service of notice of entry of our order, after withdrawing its appeal to the Court of Appeals on the advice of the clerk of that court that an appeal did not lie as of right. CPLR 5513 (subd [b]) provides that a motion for leave to appeal must be made within 30 days of service of a copy of the order with notice of entry, but CPLR 5514 provides that if an appeal is taken and dismissed, the 30 days shall be computed from the dismissal. This has been interpreted to mean that computation of the time allowed begins upon service of a copy of the order terminating the first attempted appeal with written notice of its entry. (Matter of Park East Corp. v Whalen, 38 NY2d 559 .) In this case there is no order of dismissal since appellant voluntarily withdrew its appeal. Had it not so withdrawn, the 30 days within which it had to make a motion for leave to appeal would not have begun to run. Since no order was entered, there is doubt as to whether we can permit further review in the Court of Appeals. Assuming that appellant’s time had not lapsed at the time it made the instant motion, we exercise our discretion to grant leave to appeal. Ultimate determination of whether the time to move had lapsed should await the determination of a motion in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal. (See Tai On Luck Corp. v Cirota, 36 AD2d 708 , app dsmd 29 NY2d 747 .) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Lane and Lupiano, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

2001: 12009: 120012026peak 2001 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Park East Corp. v. Whalen, 345 N.E.2d 289 (N.Y. 1976) 7
Tai On Luck Corp. v. Cirota, 276 N.E.2d 234 (N.Y. 1971) 6
Tai On Luck Corp. v. Cirota, 36 A.D.2d 708 (1971) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list