Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealrespondent

Related Cases

In the Matter of DCH Auto, as tenant obligated to pay taxes, et al., appellants, v. The Town of, nan

Facts

The respondents filed an application to extend the time for serving and filing a brief related to an appeal from a judgment entered on February 10, 2017. No opposition was filed against this application, leading to the court's decision.

Issue

Whether the respondents should be granted an extension of time to serve and file their brief on appeal.

Rule

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2), the court has the authority to grant extensions for filing briefs.

Analysis

The court considered the application and noted that no opposition was filed. Given the lack of opposition and the procedural rules allowing for such extensions, the court found it appropriate to grant the request.

Conclusion

The application was granted, and the applicants were given until January 12, 2018, to serve and file their brief.

Who won?

The respondents prevailed in this case as their application for an extension was granted due to the absence of opposition.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Friends for Ferrell Parkway, LLC v. Stasko, 282 F.3d 315, 54 ERC 1758, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,493

McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202, 114 S.Ct. 1461, 128 L.Ed.2d 148, 1994 A.M.C. 1521, 62 USLW 4241, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,826

Resources Ltd., Inc. v. Robertson, 35 F.3d 1300, 37 ERC 2111

In re Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 88 S.Ct. 1344, 20 L.Ed.2d 312, 75 P.U.R.3d 257

Selkirk Conservation Alliance v. Forsgren, 336 F.3d 944, 33 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,242, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6301, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7955