| Furey v Sayville Union Free School District |
| Motion No: 2005-04659 +1 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2006 NYSlipOp 68428(U) |
| Decided on May 9, 2006 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M39364
C/sl
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
ANITA R. FLORIO
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
|
2005-04659, 2005-06267 Constance R. Furey, et al., appellants, v Sayville Union Free School District, et al., respondents. (Index No. 12847-99)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent Sayville Union Free School District to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated May 25, 2005 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2005-06267), in effect, on the ground that appellate review of the issues is barred by the doctrine of Bray v Cox (38 NY2d 350), or, in the alternative, to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief. Cross motion by the appellants to recall and vacate so much of a decision and order on motion of this court, entitled "In the Matter of the Dismissal of Causes for Failure to Perfect - January 2006 Calendar," dated February 10, 2006, as dismissed an appeal from an order of the same court dated February 28, 2005 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2005-04659), pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(e) for failure to timely perfect the same, to reinstate the appeal, to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal, and to consolidate the appeal with the appeal from the judgment.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and cross motion, and the papers filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal from the judgment is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to serve and file a respondent's brief is granted; the movant's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until June 9, 2006; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branches of the cross motion which are to vacate the dismissal of the appeal from the order and reinstate the appeal are granted, and so much of the decision and order on motion of this court dated February 10, 2006, as dismissed the appeal from the order is recalled and vacated, and the appeal is reinstated; and it is further,
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the appeal from the order is dismissed (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248); and it is further,
ORDERED that the cross motion is otherwise denied as academic.
PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, KRAUSMAN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court