Calling on Manhattan Appellate Division to Simplify the Process
Anyone who believes that Manhattan is more sophisticated than say Queens needs to litigate a criminal appeal in the First and Second Departments pursuant to the appendix method or on the original record.
August 06, 2019 at 03:02 PM
3 minute read
After 46 years of handling criminal appeals in the various departments of the Appellate Division, but mostly in the First and Second, I am taking a short moment to vent (finally). Anyone who believes that Manhattan is more sophisticated than say Queens needs to litigate a criminal appeal in the First and Second Departments pursuant to the appendix method or on the original record.
When perfecting a criminal appeal by either method in Manhattan, you need to first travel to the appeals bureau by taking the elevator to the 11th floor at the Criminal Court Building, 100 Centre St., and then walking up one flight behind the “Black door” directly across from the South elevator. A deputy clerk then needs to endorse the subpoena required pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 1250.9(a)(2)(i) or (4)(i). Next, you need to take that endorsed subpoena over to the basement at Civil Term, 60 Centre Street, and first stand on line to have the subpoena approved and endorsed. Next, you need to move over to the cashier line, pay the fee and retrieve the now second-time endorsed subpoena. You then have to take the receipt and the subpoena back to the Appeals Bureau at 100 Centre St. where you file it. (Don’t forget to have your own copy stamped as proof of service on the clerk and make sure you have a secure pass so you don’t have to go through security three times.)
On the other hand, if you are taking an appeal to the Second Department from Queens Supreme Court (same with most of the other counties therein), you email a letter in lieu thereof to the Appeals bureau clerk. Sorry, that is all you need to do—no subpoena approval; no fee, and no two-stop shopping.
Really, is it too much to ask, if Manhattan insists on charging a fee, to at least put a cashier’s terminal in the Appeals Bureau at 100 Centre St. so that—as in the Second Department—there can be one-stop shopping? Perhaps Denis Reo, the newly appointed clerk of the Supreme Court, Civil Term, which oversees the cashiers at 60 Centre St. (congratulations, by the way), can seek to be innovative.
One can certainly hope.
Mark M. Baker is of counsel to Brafman & Associates.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
3 minute readLetter to the Editor: Law Journal Used Misleading Photo for Article on Election Observers
1 minute readNYC's Administrative Court's to Publish Some Rulings in the New York Law Journal Is Welcomed. But It Should Go Further
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250