Boryla-Lett v Psychiatric Solutions of NC, Inc
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA11-621 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 20 December 2011 DINAH BORYLA-LETT, individually and as Adm. of the estate of AMANDA BORYLA a/k/a AMANDA HRASAR and JEFFREY LETT, Plaintiffs, v. Wake County No. 07 CVS 11882 PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., d/b/a HOLLY HILL HOSPITAL, GEORGE P. CORVIN, MD, JOHN T. CLAPACS, MD and NORTH RALEIGH PSYCHIATRY, PA, and JOHN DOE, Defendants. Appeal by Plaintiff from order entered 11 December 2010 by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 November 2011. Martin A. Rosenberg, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Teague Campbell Dennis & Gorham, L.L.P., by J. Matthew Little and Megan B. Baldwin, for Defendants-Appellees. BEASLEY, Judge. Dinah Boryla-Lett, individually and as the administrator of the estate of Amanda Boryla and Jeffrey Lett (Plaintiffs) appeal -2an order for sanctions entered 11 December 2010 granting the disbursement and payment of sanctions by Plaintiffs. For the following reasons, we dismiss. Pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 3(d) notice of appeal shall designate the judgment or order from which appeal is taken[.] Additionally, [p]roper notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement that may not be waived. Chee v. Estes, 117 N.C. App. (1994). 450, appellate 452, court 451 S.E.2d obtains 349, 350 jurisdiction only As over such, the the rulings specifically designated in the notice of appeal as the ones from which the appeal is being taken. Sellers v. Ochs, 180 N.C. App. 332, 334, 638 S.E.2d 1, 2-3 (2006) marks omitted). (internal quotation A narrow exception to this rule exists where a mistake in designating the judgment, or in designating the part appealed from if only a part is designated, should not result in loss of the appeal as long as the intent to appeal from a specific judgment can be fairly inferred from the notice and the appellee is not misled by the mistake. Evans v. Evans, 169 N.C. App. 358, 363, 610 S.E.2d 264, 269 (2005). In the case sub judice, Plaintiffs gave notice of appeal from the order entered by Judge W. Osmond Smith III in Wake County Superior Court on or about December 10, 2010 ordering sanctions against said counsel. September order granting No reference was made to the 1 Defendants Rule 11 motion for -3sanctions. Moreover, the notice of appeal does not fall into the exception to the general rule where no intent to appeal the 1 September 2010 can be inferred. See Fenz v. Davis, 128 N.C. App. 621, 623, 495 S.E.2d 748, 750 (1998)( A notice of appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial which does not also specifically present the aforementioned appeal underlying reasons, the underlying judgment our review for is judgment review. ) limited to does not For the arguments concerning the 10 December 2010 order imposing the disbursement and payment of sanctions. Because all of Plaintiffs arguments challenge the 1 September 2010 order, we dismiss. Dismissed. Judges BRYANT and STEELMAN concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
