Bianco v Law Offices of Yuri Prakhin
Motion No: 2017-04561
Slip Opinion No: 2018 NY Slip Op 64616(U)
Decided on February 20, 2018
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

M246188

E/afa

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.

JEFFREY A. COHEN

JOSEPH J. MALTESE

BETSY BARROS, JJ.

2017-04561

Tatyana Bianco, appellant-respondent,

v Law Offices of Yuri Prakhin, et al., defendants,

Steven C. Kletzkin, PLLC, et al., respondents,

Schneider Law Group, et al., respondents-appellants.

(Index No. 514493/16)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant-respondent on an appeal and a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 31, 2017, to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal and to direct the respondent-appellant to pay a certain sum of costs. Separate motion by the respondents-appellants to enlarge the time to perfect the cross appeal.

Upon the papers filed in support of the appellant-respondent's motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the respondents-appellants' motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the branch of the appellant-respondent's motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal and the respondents-appellants' motion are granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appellant-respondent's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the joint record or appendix on the appeal and cross appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][1]) and the appellant-respondent's brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondents-appellants shall serve and file the answering brief, including the points of argument on the cross appeal, in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the appellant-respondent's motion which is to direct the respondents-appellants to pay a certain sum of costs is denied in light of the representation by the respondents-appellants that they will pay those costs.

CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court