| Matter of Lew v Sobel |
| Motion No: 2019-06557 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2019 NY Slip Op 76199(U) |
| Decided on July 26, 2019 |
| 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. |
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M264586
E/slMARK C. DILLON, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
|
2019-06557 In the Matter of Mark Lew, respondent, v Gail Sobel, appellant. (Index No. 603870/18)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
2019-06558
In the Matter of Mark Lew, respondent,
v Gail Sobel, appellant.
(Index No. 603870/18)
Motion by the appellant, in effect, to stay enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 26, 2019, which, inter alia, appointed a receiver in the above-entitled action, and of so much of a judgment of the same court also entered April 26, 2019, as authorized the receiver to sell certain real property, pending hearing and determination of appeals from the order and the judgment, and to consolidate the appeals.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is, in effect, to stay enforcement of the order entered April 26, 2019, and of so much of the judgment also entered April 26, 2019, as authorized the receiver to sell certain real property is granted and enforcement of the order and of so much of the judgment as authorized the receiver to sell certain real property is stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeals on condition that the appeals are perfected on or before August 26, 2019; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event the appeals are not perfected on or before August 26, 2019, the Court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, without further notice, or the respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days notice; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to consolidate the appeals is denied as unnecessary as the appeals may be consolidated as of right (see 22 NYCRR 1250.9[f][3]).
DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, LEVENTHAL and DUFFY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court