MARCIA ALLEN V WAL-MART STORES, INC. MARCIA ALLEN V WAL-MART STORES EAST LP MARCIA ALLEN V WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP
Motion No: CA 13-00879
Slip Opinion No: 2013 NY Slip Op 75907(U)
Decided on May 31, 2013
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.


May 31, 2013

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

DOCKET NO. CA 13-00879
DOCKET NO. CA 13-00880

MARCIA ALLEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V

WAL-MART STORES, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

MARCIA ALLEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V

WAL-MART STORES EAST LP, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

(APPEAL NO. 1.)

MARCIA ALLEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

(APPEAL NO. 2.)


Appellant having moved to extend the time to perfect the appeals taken herein from orders of the Supreme Court entered in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Monroe on July 25, 2012, and July 30, 2012, and to consolidate the appeals, and

Respondents having cross-moved to dismiss the appeals for failure to perfect timely the appeals,

Now, upon reading and filing the affirmations of Melvin Bressler, Esq., dated May 6, 2013, and May 17, 2013, the affirmation of Joseph A. Gawlowicz, Esq., received May 17, 2013, and the notices of motion and cross motion with proof of service thereof, and due deliberation having been had thereon,

It is hereby ORDERED that the motion insofar as it seeks to consolidate is granted is granted and the appeals from orders entered July 25, 2012, and July 30, 2012, 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 granted and appellant shall perfect the appeals on or before July 16, 2013, and, in the event of failure to so perfect, the appeals are hereby dismissed without further order, and

It is hereby ORDERED that the cross motion is dismissed.

Entered: May 31, 2013

Frances E. Cafarell, Clerk