| Tyree v Henn |
| Motion No: 2012-02927 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2012 NY Slip Op 78886(U) |
| Decided on July 16, 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. |
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M140665
E/sl
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
|
2012-02927, 2012-02933, 2012-05521 Caroline P. Tyree, plaintiff, v Donald E. Henn, Jr., defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent; Samuel J. Raffa, et al., third-party defendants-appellants. (Appeal No. 1) Caroline P. Tyree, plaintiff-appellant, v Donald E. Henn, Jr., defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent; Samuel J. Raffa, et al., third-party defendants-appellants. (Appeals Nos. 2 and 3) (Index No. 27590-09)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by Samuel J. Raffa and Patricia Raffa on appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered February 9, 2012, and two orders of the same court dated December 2, 2011, and April 12, 2012, respectively, inter alia, to stay the respondent or anyone acting on his behalf from enforcing so much of the judgment and orders as, in effect, imposed a lien on the subject premises in favor of the respondent in the sum of $58,500, pending hearing and determination of the appeals.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to stay the respondent or anyone acting on his behalf from enforcing so much of the judgment and orders as, in effect, imposed a lien on the subject premises in favor of the respondent is granted, and the respondent or anyone acting on his behalf is stayed from enforcing so much of the judgment and orders as, in effect, imposed a lien on the subject premises in favor of the respondent pending hearing and determination of the appeals on condition that the appeals are perfected on or before August 17, 2012; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event the appeals are not perfected on or before August 17, 2012, the Court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, without further notice, or the respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days notice; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.
SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court