Matter of Konrad v Southampton Village Board of Architectu
Motion No: 2010-09607
Slip Opinion No: 2012 NY Slip Op 66186(U)
Decided on March 2, 2012
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

M134153

E/sl

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL

SHERI S. ROMAN

JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

2010-09607

In the Matter of Evelyn Konrad, appellant,

v Southampton Village Board of Architectural

Review and Historic Preservation, et al.,

respondents.

(Index No. 35049-07)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 28, 2010. Cross motion by the respondent Southampton Village Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant failed to comply with a decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 16, 2011, which directed her to serve and file a supplemental record, and to impose a sanction upon the appellant.

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

ORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents (see CPLR 8301); and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the cross motion which is to dismiss the appeal is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the cross motion which is to impose a sanction upon the appellant is granted to the extent that the respondents are awarded costs on the appeal as set forth above, and that branch of the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the branch of the respondents' prior motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it has been rendered academic, which was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof, is denied as academic.

RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court