CPLR 5520 in action

Somebody – namely me – served a notice of appeal on the wrong attorney, yet timely filed the said notice of appeal.  CPLR 5520(a) to the rescue…   Underlying defense?  EUO no-show and lack of medical necessity.  And – a stay was also granted.

Ortho Prods. & Equip., Inc. As Assignee of Daniel Robinson, Nicholas Manickchand & Bradley Forbes v Interboro Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 78861(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)

2011-551 K C

“Motion by appellant on an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered December 16, 2010, pursuant to CPLR 5520 (a), to extend the time to serve on respondent a notice of appeal, which was timely filed, and for a stay pending the determination of the appeal.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the branch of the motion seeking, pursuant to CPLR 5520 (a), to extend the time to serve a notice of appeal on respondent is granted, and the notice of appeal is deemed timely served on respondent; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the motion seeking a stay pending the determination of the appeal is granted on condition the appeal be perfected by October 7, 2011; and it is further,

ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before October 7, 2011, the court, on its own motion, may dismiss the appeal, or respondent may move to dismiss the appeal on three days’ notice, and may serve such application in person.”

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk

Related Articles

• Understanding IME No-Shows in New York No-Fault Insurance: Rights, Consequences, and Strategic Considerations
• Reasonable excuse satisfied despite claim of lack of personal jurisdiction
• Understanding CPLR 3212(a): Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York
• The CPLR 3212(g) paradigm
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): The procedural provisions of CPLR 5520(a) regarding extension of time to serve notices of appeal may have been subject to court rule amendments or interpretive developments since 2011. Additionally, no-fault insurance regulations governing examination under oath requirements and medical necessity standards have undergone multiple revisions that could affect similar underlying disputes. Practitioners should verify current provisions of both the CPLR and applicable Insurance Law regulations when handling comparable appeals.