RAYMOND PINK AND MICHELLE PINK V MATTHEW RICCI MARK WILBUR, CHRISTIN WILBUR, ROME YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION, INC.
Motion No: CA 12-00377
Slip Opinion No: 2012 NY Slip Op 66558(U)
Decided on March 5, 2012
Appellate Division, Fourth 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.


March 5, 2012

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P. J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.

DOCKET NO. CA 12-00377
DOCKET NO. CA 12-00379

RAYMOND PINK AND MICHELLE PINK, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V

MATTHEW RICCI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,

MARK WILBUR, CHRISTIN WILBUR, ROME YOUTH HOCKEY

ASSOCIATION, INC., WHITESTOWN YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION,

INC., CITY OF ROME, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS,

AND DIANN WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT.

(APPEAL NO. 1.)

RAYMOND PINK AND MICHELLE PINK, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V

MATTHEW RICCI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,

MARK WILBUR, CHRISTIN WILBUR, ROME YOUTH HOCKEY

ASSOCIATION, INC., WHITESTOWN YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION,

INC., CITY OF ROME, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS,

AND DIANN WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT.

(APPEAL NO. 2.)


Appellant having moved to consolidate the appeals taken herein from an order and order and judgment of the Supreme Court entered in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Oneida on July 18, 2011 (appeal No. 1), and November 21, 2011 (appeal No. 2), and having moved for an extension of time to perfect the appeals,

Now, upon reading and filing the affidavit of Matthew J. Larkin, Esq., sworn to February 21, 2012, the notice of motion with proof of service thereof, the affidavit of Matthew J. Kelly, Esq., sworn to February 23, 2012, and due deliberation having been had thereon,

It is hereby ORDERED that the motion insofar as it seeks to consolidate the appeals is granted and the appeals from the order and judgment entered July 18, 2011, and the order entered November 21, 2011, are hereby consolidated for the purposes of perfecting and arguing the appeals, and

It is further ORDERED that the motion insofar as it seeks an extension of time to perfect the appeals is dismissed as premature (see 22 NYCRR 1000.13 [f]).

Entered: March 5, 2012

Frances E. Cafarell, Clerk