Title: Sullivan v. Seitz, Van Ogtrop & Green
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 362, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: August 7, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JOHN B. SULLIVAN, 
 
Appellant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
SEITZ, VAN OGTROP, & GREEN, 
 
Appellee Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 362, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  C.A. No. 08A-09-001 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  July 27, 2009 
 
 
 
 
 Decided:  August 7, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 7th day of August 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 22, 2009, the Court received appellant’s notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order, dated May 20, 2009, which affirmed a 
judgment by the Court of Common Pleas.  Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before June 19, 
2009. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2- 
dismissed as untimely filed.1  Appellant filed a response to the notice to 
show cause on July 27, 2009.  He asserts that he did not receive a copy of 
the Superior Court’s order until May 25, 2009 because the trial court mailed 
his copy of the decision to his street address instead of to his post office box.  
Apparently, appellant is arguing that his untimely appeal should be allowed 
because of this alleged delay in his mail delivery.  
(3) 
We disagree.  Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of 
appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the 
applicable time period in order to be effective.3  An appellant’s pro se status 
does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional 
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  Unless the appellant can 
demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to 
court-related personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.5 
(4) 
In this case, appellant acknowledges receipt of the Superior 
Court’s decision on May 25.  He offers no explanation for why he did not 
timely file his notice of appeal by June 19.  There is nothing in the record to 
                                                 
1Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). 
3Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3- 
substantiate appellant’s suggestion that his failure to file a timely notice of 
appeal in this case is attributable to Superior Court personnel.  
Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule 
that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  Thus, the Court 
concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice