| KAI LIN V DEPARTMENT OF DENTISTRY, UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER, UNIVERSITY DENTAL FACULTY GROUP, DR. CARLO |
| Motion No: CA 13-00998 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2013 NY Slip Op 85747(U) |
| Decided on September 17, 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. |
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P. J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.
DOCKET NO. CA 13-00998
| KAI LIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V DEPARTMENT OF
DENTISTRY, UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER, UNIVERSITY DENTAL FACULTY GROUP, DR. CARLO ERCOLI, SCHOOL OF
DENTAL MEDICINE, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO, DR. JANE BREWER, OSBORN, REED & BURKE, LLP, CHRISTIAN C. CASINI,
ESQ., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. |
Appellant having moved for permission to proceed as a poor person on the appeal taken herein from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court entered in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Monroe on January 15, 2013, and having moved for an extension of time to perfect the appeal, and
Respondent Dr. Jane Brewer having cross-moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to perfect timely the appeal,
Now, upon reading and filing the affidavits of Kai Lin sworn to August 5, 2013, and August 15, 2013, the affidavit of Elizabeth M. Bergen, Esq., sworn to August 8, 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 permission to proceed as a poor person is denied on the ground that appellant has failed to set forth facts demonstrating merit to the appeal, and
It is further ORDERED that appellant's motion insofar as it seeks an extension of time to perfect the appeal is granted and appellant shall perfect the appeal on or before November 18, 2013, and, in the event of failure to so perfect, the appeal is hereby dismissed without further order, and
It is further ORDERED that the cross motion is dismissed.
Entered: September 17, 2013
Frances E. Cafarell, Clerk