Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M118977

J/sl

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.

PETER B. SKELOS

SANDRA L. SGROI

ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

2010-08413, 2010-08414 Felix Vasquez, etc., et al., respondents, v County of Nassau, et al., appellants- respondents, Glory E. Upke, respondent- appellant. (Index No. 9493/04)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Separate applications by the appellants-respondents and respondent-appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 27, 2005, and an appeal and cross appeal from a judgment of the same court entered August 4, 2010.

Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the appeal from the order entered September 27, 2005 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2010-08413), is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that the right of direct appeal from the order terminated upon entry of the judgment in the above-entitled action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241), and the issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review on the appeal from the judgment entered August 4, 2010 (see CPLR 5501[a][1]);

ORDERED that the branch of the appellants-respondents' application which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal from the order entered September 27, 2005, is denied as academic; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the appellants-respondents' application which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal from the judgment entered August 4, 2010, is granted and the appellants-respondents' time to perfect the appeal from the judgment is enlarged until May 18, 2011, and the joint record or appendix on the appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][1]) and the appellants-respondents' brief must be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent-appellant shall serve and file the answering brief, including the 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 respondent-appellant's application is denied as premature as the appellants-respondents have not perfected the appeal.

RIVERA, J.P., SKELOS, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court