Matter of Congregation Ahava Moische, Inc. v Katzoff
Motion No: 2013-06910
Slip Opinion No: 2014 NY Slip Op 82371(U)
Decided on September 2, 2014
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.


Supreme Court of the State of New York

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M178925

E/sl

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS

L. PRISCILLA HALL

JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

2013-06910

In the Matter of Congregation Ahava Moische,

Inc., et al., petitioners-respondents, v Joseph

Katzoff, et al., appellants, et al., respondents.

(Index No. 3895/12)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the petitioners-respondents, inter alia, for leave to file a supplemental appendix on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 6, 2013. Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the appeal from so much of the order as held in abeyance the petitioners-respondents' motion to hold the appellants in contempt is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that this portion of the order is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701), and we decline to grant leave to appeal; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appellants' brief is stricken and on or before September 26, 2014, the appellants may serve and file a replacement brief which does not raise issues regarding the petitioners-respondents' motion to hold the appellants in contempt; and it is further,

ORDERED that the petitioners-respondents brief is stricken and on or before October 27, 2014, the petitioners-respondents may serve and file a replacement brief that does not refer to the proposed supplemental appendix or raise issues regarding the petitioners-respondents' motion to hold the appellants in contempt; and it is further,

ORDERED that the application is denied as academic.

BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, HALL and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court