| Horne v Swimquip, Inc. |
| Motion No: 2005-11624 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2006 NYSlipOp 76974(U) |
| Decided on October 2, 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
M44974
A/sl
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
STEVEN W. FISHER
ROBERT J. LUNN, JJ.
|
2005-11624 Cecilia Horne, appellant, v Swimquip, Inc., et al., respondents, et al., defendant. (Index No. 21939/93)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondents Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Wylain, Inc., and Marley-Wylain Company, a/k/a Marley Company to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 16, 2005, on the ground that it is barred by the doctrine of Bray v Cox (38 NY2d 350), in effect, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant did not copy the movant on a letter application to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal, or to enlarge the time of the respondents Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Wylain, Inc., and Marley-Wylain Company, a/k/a Marley Company to serve and file a brief.
Upon the papers filed in support of the 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 on the ground that it is barred by Bray v Cox (38 NY2d 350) is held in abeyance, and is referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission of the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is, in effect, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant did not copy the movant on a letter application to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time of the respondents Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Wylain, Inc., and Marley-Wylain Company, a/k/a Marley Company to serve and file a brief is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the time of the respondents Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Wylain, Inc., and Marley-Wylain Company, a/k/a Marley Company to serve and file a brief is enlarged until November 6, 2006, and those respondents' brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
PRUDENTI, P.J., MASTRO, FISHER and LUNN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court