Majority
p. 475John Wetter v. Henry W. Erichs.
Headnote
Extensions of time to serve appeal papers—they must be applied for in the court below, not in the Appellate Division.Appellants who desire extensions of time to enable them to serve their appeal papers must apply to the court below, as the Appellate Division will not entertain such applications.
Motions to dismiss appeals.
C. C. Nadal, for the motion.
August P. Wagener, opposed.
p. 476Cesare Conti v. Marcello H. Barilati. Frank K. Murphy and Others v. Christian Press Association Company. The People of the State of New York v. Commercial Alliance Insurance Company. In re Priestly. In the Matter of John Stafford.
Louis Steckler, for the motion.
Franklin Bien, opposed.
Strong & Cadwalader, for the motion.
John H. Fargis, opposed.
Hotchkiss & Maddox, for the motion.
J. Edward Ackley, opposed.
James P. Niemann, for the motion.
Thomas McAdam, opposed.
This court, as long ago as October, 1896, when the case of Gamble v. Lennon ( 9 App. Div. 407 ) was decided, declared that ■ where parties desired extensions for the purpose of serving their papers upon appeal, applications therefor must be made to the court below,, and that such applications would not be ■ entertained by the Appellate Division.
The appellants in the above-entitled motions having made no attempt to get tlieir time to serve their papers extended, or to have their defaults opened, their appeals must be dismissed, with.ten dollars costs in each case.
Present—Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, Rumsey, Williams and Patterson, JJ.
Motions granted, with ten dollars costs.