| Matter of Baez v Brown |
| Motion No: 2011-00378 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2011 NY Slip Op 88393(U) |
| Decided on October 28, 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
M127993
S/sl
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
|
2011-00378 In the Matter of Candido Baez, appellant, v Richard A. Brown, etc., et al., respondents.
(Index No. 24221/09)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent Raymond W. Kelly to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 27, 2010, on the ground that the appellant failed to serve his appendix and on the further ground that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, or in the alternative, to direct the appellant to serve his appendix on the respondent Raymond W. Kelly and to enlarge the time to serve and file his brief. Separate motion by the respondent Richard A. Brown to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the appellant failed to serve his appendix, the appeal was not timely perfected, and no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, or in the alternative, to enlarge his time to serve and file a brief. Application by the respondent Richard A. Brown pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief.
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 no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branches of the motions which are to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument are denied without prejudice to the respondents raising the issue in their briefs; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branches of the motions which are to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant failed to serve his appendix on the respondents are denied as academic as the appendix has been served on the respondents; and it is further,
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the appendix is deemed timely served; and it is further,
ORDERED that the application and the branches of the motions which are to enlarge time to serve and file briefs are granted, the respondents' time to serve and file their respective briefs is enlarged until December 27, 2011, and the respondents' briefs shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motions are otherwise denied.
SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, LEVENTHAL and HALL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court