Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Second District (David A. Morris, J.), dated April 12, 2013. The order denied defendant's motion for leave to file a late demand for a trial de novo.

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal filed May 10, 2013, which contains an inaccurate description of the order appealed from, is deemed a valid notice of appeal from the order dated April 12, 2013 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated April 12, 2013 is affirmed, without costs.

Following mandatory arbitration (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] part 28) in this action based on a breach of contract and an account stated, defendant moved for leave to file a late demand for a trial de novo (see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] § 28.12). By order dated April 12, 2013, the District Court denied the motion.

As defendant failed to either serve or file a timely demand for a trial de novo, her motion was properly denied, since "[t]he time period to serve and file a demand for a trial de novo is not extendable" (U.S. Building and Design Inc. v Melia, 2003 NY Slip Op 50847[U], *1 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]; see Rules of the Chief Judge [22 NYCRR] § 28.12 [b]; Chase v Scalici, 97 AD2d 25 [1983]; Pruzan v Levine, 18 Misc 3d 70 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

We note that we do not consider those factual assertions made, or exhibits submitted, to this court which are dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Iannacci, J.P., Marano and Garguilo, JJ., concur.