Sajo Realty Corp. v Jim Antoine
Motion No: 2009-01861 kc
Slip Opinion No: 2013 NY Slip Op 66151(U)
Decided on February 25, 2013
Appellate Term, 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 Term of the Supreme Court

of the State of New York for the 2nd, 11th & 13th judicial Districts

MICHAEL L. PESCE, P.J.

JAIME A. RIOS

MARTIN M. SOLOMON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

2009-1861 K C
Sajo Realty Corp., Respondent, v Jim Antoine, Appellant.

Sajo Realty Corp., Respondent, v Jim Antoine, Appellant.

Appellate Term Docket No.

2011-2006 K C

Lower Court # 103994/09 ---------------------------------------------------------------------x

Motion by appellant on appeals in separate proceedings from two orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered June 23, 2009 (Appeal No. 2009-1861 K C) and January 13, 2011 (Appeal No. 2011-2006 K C), respectively, to, among other things, direct the Civil Court to reproduce missing papers, to "stay" a third proceeding, and for an enlargement of time to perfect Appeal No. 2011-2006 K C.

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

ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that the above-captioned appeals are consolidated for the purpose of disposition of appellant's motion; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of appellant's motion seeking an enlargement of time to perfect Appeal No. 2011-2006 K C is denied as academic, as that appeal was dismissed by decision and order of this court dated July 18, 2011 as taken from a non-appealable paper; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of appellant's motion seeking to "stay" a third proceeding is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the remainder of appellant's motion is granted to the extent of directing the Civil Court (Laurie Lynne Lau, J.) to report, following a reconstruction hearing, whether reconstruction of the record is possible (see Davis Bros. Eng'g Corp. v Ferraro, 297 AD2d 275 [2002]). The Civil Court shall file its report and/or the record with all convenient speed. In the event reconstruction is not possible, appellant may, if so advised, move in this court for summary reversal.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk