Case Name: In the Matter of Rye Town/King Civic Association et al., Appellants, v. Town of Rye, Respondent. Atrium Associates, Intervenor-Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1982-06-17
Citations: 56 N.Y.2d 985
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Rye Town/King Civic Association et al., Appellants, v Town of Rye, Respondent. Atrium Associates, Intervenor-Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 56
Pages: 985–987

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Rye Town/King Civic Association et al., Appellants, v Town of Rye, Respondent. Atrium Associates, Intervenor-Respondent.
Submitted April 19, 1982;
decided June 17, 1982
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
J. Henry Neale, Jr., for appellants.
Daniel J. Pykett for respondent.
Daniel G. Donovan for intervenor-respondent.

Opinion:
opinion of the court
Memorandum.
The motion for leave to appeal should be dismissed as untimely.
A party who has mistaken the method for obtaining appellate review is entitled to a 30-day extension of time within which to pursue the proper method of appeal (CPLR 5514, subd [a]). In such circumstances, however, an adverse party who initially did not either appeal as of right under CPLR 5513 (subd [a]), or move for leave to appeal under CPLR 5513 (subd [b]), or cross-appeal or cross-move for leave to appeal under CPLR 5513 (subd [c]), may not avail itself of the 10-day extension provided by CPLR 5513 (subd [c]).
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed in a memorandum, with twenty dollars costs and necessary reproduction disbursements to intervenor-respondent.