| Kurlandski v Kim |
| Motion No: 2012-08436 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2012 NY Slip Op 84938(U) |
| Decided on September 20, 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
M143825
E/sl
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
ANITA R. FLORIO
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
|
2012-08436 Martin Chaim Kurlandski, etc., appellant, v Jae K. Kim, etc., respondent. (Index No. 13308/12)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant, inter alia, to enjoin the respondent, her agents, or anyone acting on her behalf and/or under her control, from issuing any notices to cure and/or notices of termination, commencing and/or continuing any actions or proceedings against him, or taking any other steps to remove or evict him from the subject premises, including, without limitation, pursuant to the purported termination notice, pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 5, 2012.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent that the respondent, her agents, or anyone acting on her behalf and/or under her control, are enjoined from issuing any notices to cure and/or notices of termination, commencing and/or continuing any actions or proceedings against the appellant or taking any other steps to remove or evict the appellant from the subject premises, including, without limitation, pursuant to the purported termination notice, pending hearing and determination of the appeal on condition that the appellant on or before October 22, 2012, (1) perfects the appeal, and (2) posts an undertaking with corporate surety in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, in the sum of $20,000, in terms that if the order appealed from, or any part of it, is affirmed, the surety will indemnify the respondent if it is ultimately determined that the respondent sustained a loss due to the stay, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event the appellant does not comply with the foregoing conditions, 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.
RIVERA, J.P., FLORIO, CHAMBERS and HALL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court