IN RE HAVERSTRAW PARK v. RUNCIBLE PROP

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from an appeal to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York in the matter of Haverstraw Park, Inc. (Respondent) v. Runcible Properties Corporation (Appellant). The case was submitted May 21, 1973, and decided July 3, 1973. The appeal is from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Judicial Department (MORTON B. SILBERMAN, J.). Counsel of record included Bernard E. Stanger for the motion and Donald Tirschwell in opposition. The Court of Appeals addressed a motion before it that the court determined was not made within the time prescribed by statute (CPLR 5513).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the motion before the Court of Appeals was timely under CPLR 5513.
2. Whether a stipulation of the parties can confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeals to consider a motion filed after the statutory period.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court determined that the motion was not made within the time prescribed by statute, specifically citing CPLR 5513. On that basis the court dismissed the motion. The court further reasoned that a stipulation between the parties cannot create or confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeals to consider a motion that is untimely under the statute.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The motion was dismissed.

Implications: The direct effect is dismissal of the motion for failure to comply with the statutory time limit set forth in CPLR 5513. The court also held that party stipulation cannot supply jurisdiction to consider an untimely motion. The opinion does not elaborate broader implications beyond this direct effect.