| Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v Sharf |
| Motion No: 2008-00280 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2008 NYSlipOp 62466(U) |
| Decided on January 31, 2008 |
| 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
M65581
E/sl
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
RUTH C. BALKIN, JJ.
|
2008-00280 Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc., et al., respondents, v Mendel Sharf, et al., defendants, Congregation Lubavitch, Inc., appellant. (Index No. 40288/04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 27, 2007, inter alia, to modify a provision in the judgment staying enforcement of the judgment upon the posting of an undertaking by reducing the amount of the undertaking to the sum of $100,000 pending hearing and determination of the appeal. Application by the respondents to strike the appellant's reply papers or, in the alternative, for leave to file sur-reply papers.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent that enforcement of the judgment is stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal on condition that (1) the appellant continue to pay the operating expenses of Congregation Lubavitch of Agudas Chassidei Chabad, out of the income thereof, pending hearing and determination of the appeal, (2) that on or before February 7, 2008, the appellant post an undertaking with corporate surety in the sum of $250,000 in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, in terms that if the order appealed from, or any part of it, is affirmed, the surety will indemnify the respondent if it is ultimately determined that the respondent sustained a loss due to the conduct of the appellant during the period that the stay was in effect, and (3) the appeal is perfected on or before March 3, 2008, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before March 3, 2008, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, or the respondents may move to vacate the stay, on three days notice; and it is further,
ORDERED that the application is denied.
SPOLZINO, J.P., SANTUCCI, ANGIOLILLO and BALKIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court