Zara Realty Holding Corp. v Rami, Inc.
Motion No: 2014-02540
Slip Opinion No: 2014 NY Slip Op 87228(U)
Decided on October 22, 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

M181626

T/sl

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.

SANDRA L. SGROI

ROBERT J. MILLER

BETSY BARROS, JJ.

2014-02540

Zara Realty Holding Corp., appellant-respondent,

v Rami, Inc., et al., respondents-appellants,

Bullfrog Builders, Inc., et al., respondents,

et al., defendants.

(Index No. 10018/10)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Application by the appellant-respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 2, 2012. By order to show cause dated August 22, 2014, the parties were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appellant-respondent's appeal on the ground that no appeal lies as of right from an order that directs a hearing to aid in the disposition of a motion and leave to appeal had not been granted, and the appellant-respondent's application was held in abeyance in the interim. Separate application by the respondents-appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect the cross appeal.

Now, upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the applications and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that motion to dismiss the appellant-respondent's appeal is granted, and the appellant-respondent's appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see Bagdy v Progresso Foods Corp., 86 AD2d 589); and it is further,

ORDERED that the appellant-respondent's application to enlarge the time to perfect its appeal is denied as academic; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondents-appellants' application to enlarge the time to perfect their appeal is granted, the respondents-appellants' time to perfect their appeal is enlarged until November 24, 2014, and the respondents-appellants' appeal must be perfected on or before that date.

CHAMBERS, J.P., SGROI, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court