Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M40474

C/sl

STEPHEN G. CRANE, J.P.

GLORIA GOLDSTEIN

REINALDO E. RIVERA

ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.

2003-05148, 2003-07663, 2006-04641 Tanya Ostashko, respondent, v Vladimir Ostashko, defendant; Zuritta-Teks, Ltd., et al., nonparty- appellants. (Index No. 5175/98)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the nonparty-appellants (1) 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 - May 2004 Calendar," dated May 24, 2004, as dismissed an appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated June 30, 2003, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(e) for failure to timely perfect the same, and to reinstate the appeal, (2) to consolidate that appeal with appeals from an order of the same court dated May 27, 2003, and a judgment of the same court dated April 28, 2004, and (3) to enlarge the time to perfect the appeals from the orders. Cross motion by the respondent to dismiss the appeals by the nonparty-appellants on the grounds that the nonparty-appellants are not aggrieved by the orders and judgment, and that the appeals are academic.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and cross motion and the papers filed in relation or opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to reinstate the appeal from the order dated June 30, 2003 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2003-07663), is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal from the order dated May 27, 2003, is granted; the appellants time to perfect that appeal is enlarged until July 27, 2006; and it is further,

ORDERED that no further enlargement of time to perfect the appeal from the order dated May 27, 2003, shall be granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to consolidate the appeal from the order dated May 27, 2003, and the judgment is denied as unnecessary, as the appeals may be consolidated as of right (see 22 NYCRR 670.7 [c][1]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the cross motion is denied without prejudice to the respondent raising in her brief the issues of whether the nonparty-appellants have standing to appeal from the judgment and whether the appeal from the judgment brings up for review the order dated May 27, 2003 (see CPLR 5501[a][1]).

CRANE, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, RIVERA and LIFSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court