Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M177415

E/sl

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.

THOMAS A. DICKERSON

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

2014-03616 In the Matter of Alexandra Marie Stebelsky, appellant-respondent, v Randy Bryan Schleger, respondent-appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Randy Bryan Schleger, respondent-appellant, v Alexandra Marie Stebelsky, appellant-respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) (Docket Nos. V-3786-06/08E, 08I, 11P, 11Q, V-4073-06/08E, 08I, 11O, 11P, V-3786-06/11R, 11S V-4073-06/11Q, 11R)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION ,

Appeal by Alexandra Marie Stebelsky and cross appeal by Randy Bryan Schleger from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated February 27, 2014. By order to show cause dated June 11, 2014, the parties were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the cross appeal in the above-entitled proceedings for failure to comply with a scheduling order dated April 25, 2014, issued pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]). Motion by the appellant-respondent pro se to dismiss the cross appeal on the ground that the notice of cross appeal was not timely served upon the appellant-respondent, for poor person relief, and for the assignment of counsel.

Now, upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the appellant-respondent's motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the cross appeal for failure to comply with the scheduling order dated April 25, 2014, is granted, and the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to comply with the scheduling order dated April 25, 2014, issued pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the appellant-respondent's motion which is to dismiss the cross appeal is denied as academic; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branches of the appellant-respondent's motion which are for poor person relief and for the assignment of counsel are denied, with leave to renew on or before August 22, 2014, upon proper papers, including the appellant-respondent's affidavit setting forth (1) the appellant-respondent's full financial situation including all assets, both real and personal, as well as any and all sources of income and expenses, and (2) whether the appellant-respondent was represented by assigned counsel or retained counsel in the Family Court, and, if retained, the amount and source of counsel fees paid to retained counsel.

RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and DUFFY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court