Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M231872

E/sl

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.

ROBERT J. MILLER

HECTOR D. LASALLE

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

2013-00867 Columbia Capital Co., respondent, v Frank Rosemberg, appellant, et al., defendant. (Index No. 7623/09)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 7, 2012, on the ground that the record is inadequate and does not comply with the rules of the Court and the appellant's brief does not comply with the rules of the Court, or, in the alternative, to strike the record and the appellant's brief and direct the appellant to serve and file replacements, to enlarge the respondent's time to serve and file a brief, and to direct the appellant to file a statement specifying whether he is proceeding pro se or is represented by Joseph E. Ruyack III, and to impose a sanction upon Joseph E. Ruyack III. Separate motion by the appellant to stay the sale of the subject premises pending hearing and determination of the appeal. Separate motion by the respondent to dismiss the appeal and the motions on the ground that they have been rendered academic.

Upon the papers filed in support of the respondent's motion, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the record is inadequate and the papers filed in opposition thereto, upon the papers filed in support of the appellant's motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal and the motions on the ground that they have been rendered academic and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that the branch of the respondent's motion which is to strike the record and the appellant's brief and direct the appellant to serve and file replacements is granted, and on or before June 30, 2017, the appellant shall serve and file a replacement record that contains all of the papers considered by the Supreme Court in determining the motion that resulted in the order dated November 7, 2012, and complies with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[a], 670.10.1, 670.10.2[a],[b]), as well as a replacement brief that complies with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.10.1, 670.10.3), including appropriate references to the replacement record (see 22 NYCRR 670.10.3[g][2][iv]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the respondent's motion which is to enlarge the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is granted, the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until August 4, 2017, and the respondent's brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branches of the respondent's motion which are to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the record is inadequate and does not comply with the rules of the Court and the appellant's brief does not comply with the rules of the Court, to direct the appellant to file a statement specifying whether he is proceeding pro se or is represented by Joseph E. Ruyack III, and to impose a sanction upon Joseph E. Ruyack III are denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appellant's motion is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the respondent's motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it has been rendered academic is held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the respondent's motion which is to dismiss the motions on the ground that they have been rendered academic is denied.

CHAMBERS, J.P., MILLER, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court