| Ferguson v City of New York |
| Motion No: 2012-05915 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2013 NY Slip Op 68585(U) |
| Decided on March 27, 2013 |
| 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
M153472
E/sl
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
|
2012-05915 Arlene Ferguson, appellant, v City of New York , et al., respondents. (Index No. 12877/09)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by David Scott for leave to withdraw as counsel for appellant on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 18, 2012, and, in effect, to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in relation or opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted, and on or before April 8, 2013, David Scott is directed to serve his client by one of the methods specified in CPLR 2103(c), with a copy of this decision and order on motion and shall file proof of such service with the Clerk of this Court; and it is further,
ORDERED that no further proceedings shall be taken against the appellant, without leave of the Court, until the expiration of 30 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order on motion; and it is further,
ORDERED that on or before May 22, 2013, the appellant shall advise the Court that she has retained counsel or that she is proceeding pro se, and either advise the Court that she is adopting the brief filed by former counsel without supplement, advise the court that she is adopting the brief filed by former counsel with supplement, and serve and file a supplemental brief, or serve and file a replacement brief; and it is further,
ORDERED that if the appellant does not advise the Court as set forth above and/or serve and file a supplemental or replacement brief, as set forth above, she will be deemed to be proceeding pro se and to be adopting the brief filed by former counsel; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is, in effect, to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief is granted to the extent that in the event that the appellant advises the Court that she is adopting the brief filed by former counsel without supplement, her time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until May 22, 2013, and that branch of the motion is otherwise denied.
ENG, P.J., RIVERA, LEVENTHAL and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court