Balan Clerge v Clerge
2026 NY Slip Op 67030(U)
April 27, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431.
This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports.
Carline Balan Clerge, respondent,
v
Abed Nego Clerge, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division : Second Judicial Department
April 27, 2026
2025-07062, 51288/2019
Betsy Barros, J.P.
Barry E. Warhit
Janice A. Taylor
Susan Quirk, JJ.
[*1]DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
2025-15467
Carline Balan-Clerge, respondent, v Abed
Nego Clerge, appellant.
(Index No. 51288/2019)
Appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 22, 2025, and an order of the same court dated December 17, 2025. Motion by the appellant, inter alia, to stay enforcement of the judgment, pending hearing and determination of the appeals. Motion by the respondent to extend the time to serve and file a brief. By order to show cause dated February 27, 2026, the parties were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeals on the ground that the notices of appeal were filed in violation of the statutory stay of proceedings which arose upon the death of the respondent, and vacating the judgment and the order as nullities, and the motion by the appellant and the motion by the respondent were held in abeyance in the interim.
Now, upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the motion by the appellant and the motion by the respondent and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion, inter alia, to dismiss the appeals is granted, the appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that the notices of appeals were filed in violation of the statutory stay of proceedings which arose upon the death of the respondent (see CPLR 1015[a]; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Rosemberg, 90 AD3d 713), and the judgment and the order are vacated as nullities (see CPLR 1015; Matter of Einstoss, 26 NY2d 181); and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion by the appellant and the motion by the respondent are denied as academic.
BARROS, J.P., WARHIT, TAYLOR and QUIRK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court