| Matter of Suarez-White v White |
| Motion No: 2009-05981 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2009 NY Slip Op 87116(U) |
| Decided on October 28, 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. |
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M93802
E/sl
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
RANDALL T. ENG
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
|
2009-05981 In the Matter of Melinda N. Suarez-White, appellant, v Darrel A. White, respondent. (Docket No. V-14088-08)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal by Melinda N. Suarez-White from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 28, 2009. By order to show cause dated July 15, 2009, the parties or their attorneys were directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled action for failure to comply with a scheduling order dated July 21, 2009, issued pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]). Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel.
Upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the appellant's motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the appellant's motion which is for leave to prosecute the appeal on the original papers is denied as unnecessary (see Family Ct Act § 1116), and the appeal will be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the appellant, the respondent, and the attorney for the children, if any. The parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other (22 NYCRR 670.9[d][1][ii]; Family Ct Act § 1116); and it is further,
ORDERED that the branches of the appellant's motion which are to waive the filing fee, for free transcripts, and for the assignment of counsel are denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant's time to perfect the appeal by causing the original papers constituting the record on the appeal to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]) and by serving and filing her brief on the appeal is enlarged until December 4, 2009; and it is further,
ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.
MASTRO, J.P., SANTUCCI, ENG and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court