| Lew v Lew |
| Motion No: 2006-10852 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2006 NYSlipOp 81250(U) |
| Decided on December 5, 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
M47789
E/sl
HOWARD MILLER, J.P.
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2006-10852 Thierry Lew, respondent, v Dorothy Lew, appellant.
(Index No. 203028/05)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the defendant for leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 13, 2006, to stay enforcement of the order pending hearing and determination of the appeal, and for a preference in the calendaring of the appeal.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for leave to appeal is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to stay enforcement of the order dated November 13, 2006, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal is granted to the extent that the visitation schedule contained in the order is stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal and so much of the motion as sought to stay enforcement of the provision permitting the respondent to drive with the child as a passenger is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that pending the hearing and determination of the appeal the respondent will have the following visitation:
(A) alternate Sundays, commencing December 10, 2006, 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., except on Sunday, December 24, 2006, when visitation shall be 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.;
(C) every Wednesday 3:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.;
(D) every Friday 5:00 P.M. to 7:30 P.M.; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for a preference in the calendaring of the appeal is denied without prejudice to renew upon the perfection of the appeal.
MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and RIVERA, JJ., concur.