| Fried v City of New York |
| Motion No: 2009-03979 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 62323(U) |
| Decided on January 26, 2011 |
| 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
M114622
E/sl
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
|
2009-03979, 2010-01521 Shlomit Fried, etc., et al., plaintiffs, v City of New York, et al., defendants, New York City Economic Development Corporation, respondent, Iffland Kavanagh Waterbury, PLLC, et al., appellants (and a third-party action). (Appeal No. 1) Shlomit Fried, etc., et al., respondents-appellants, v City of New York, et al., defendants-appellants- respondents, Han-Padron Associates, LLP, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants-respondents, Biltwel General Contractor Corp., defendant-respondent, et al., defendants; Eliyahu Yadgar, third-party defendant-respondent. (Appeal No. 2) (Index No. 28770/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Separate motions by (1) City of New York and New York City Industrial Development Agency and (2) Han-Padron Associates, LLP, Han-Padron Associates, LLC, Han-Padron Associates Consulting Engineers, PLLC, Padron Associates, Inc., and Signe Nielsen Landscape Architect, P.C., to stay the trial in the above-entitled action, pending hearing and determination of appeals and cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 30, 2009. Separate motion by Iffland Kavanagh Waterbury, PLLC, Iffland Kavanagh & Waterbury, P.C., Iffland Kavanagh & Waterbury, P.C., Inc., Iffland Kavanagh Waterbury, PLLC, to stay the trial in the above-entitled action, pending hearing and determination of the appeals and cross appeals from the order dated November 30, 2009, as well as an appeal from an order of the same court dated February 1, 2009. Application by the plaintiffs to adjourn the return date of the motion so that they may file opposition papers.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motions and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the application is denied as unnecessary, as the plaintiffs' opposition papers were timely filed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motions are denied.
SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, AUSTIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court