Coleman v Coker
Motion No: 2008-07582
Slip Opinion No: 2009 NYSlipOp 65657(U)
Decided on March 5, 2009
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

M83244

E/sl

ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, J.P.

ANITA R. FLORIO

JOSEPH COVELLO

RANDALL T. ENG, JJ.

2008-07582

Shonette Coleman, et al., appellants,

v Patrick E. Coker, et al., respondents.

(Index No. 6523/07)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellants to stay enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 8, 2008, pending hearing and determination of an appeal therefrom. Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal. Application by the respondents to dismiss the appeal as untimely taken.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the applications, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted, and enforcement of the order dated February 8, 2008, is stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal on condition that the appellants (1) pay use and occupancy to the respondents in the sum of $4,000 on or before March 19, 2009, for March 2009 and on or before the first day of every month for every month thereafter, and (2) perfect the appeal on or before April 6, 2009; and it is further,

ORDERED that in the event the appellants do not comply with the foregoing conditions, 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 to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal is granted and the appellants' time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 6, 2009, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants' brief must be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,

ORDERED that the application to dismiss the appeal is denied without prejudice to making a motion for the same relief.

SPOLZINO, J.P., FLORIO, COVELLO and ENG, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court