Steinberg v Steinberg
Motion No: 2007-05849
Slip Opinion No: 2007 NYSlipOp 87601(U)
Decided on December 28, 2007
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.


Supreme Court of the State of New York

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M64163

S/sl

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.

FRED T. SANTUCCI

RUTH C. BALKIN

THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JJ.

2007-05849, 2007-05850

Marsha Steinberg, respondent-appellant,

v Melvin Steinberg, appellant-respondent.

(Index No. 204297/02)

DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION

Application by the appellant-respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect appeals and cross appeals from a decision of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 29, 2007, and a judgment of the same court entered May 17, 2007.

Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the appeal and cross appeal from the decision dated March 29, 2007, pending under Appellate Division Docket No. 2007-05849, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the application which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal from the judgment is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appellant-respondent's time to perfect the appeal from the judgment is enlarged until February 11, 2008, and the joint record or appendix on appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][1]) and the appellant-respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent-appellant shall serve and file her answering brief, including her points of argument on the cross appeal, in accordance with the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the application which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal from the decision is denied as academic.

MASTRO, J.P., SANTUCCI, BALKIN and DICKERSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court