First Franklin v Brathwaite
2026 NY Slip Op 69020(U)
May 27, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
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.
First Franklin, plaintiff,
v
Earl Brathwaite, et al., defendants, Anthony Young, etc., appellant; Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, etc., et al., nonparties-respondents.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division : Second Judicial Department
May 27, 2026
2024-04632, 40101/2007
Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.
Helen Voutsinas
Donna-Marie E. Golia
Susan Quirk, JJ.
[*1]DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 3, 2014. Motion by nonparty VM SPV 5, LLC, in effect, for leave to respond to the appeal in the name of the plaintiff, and to extend the time to serve and file a brief. Motion by the appellant to stay all proceedings in the above-entitled action, pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion by nonparty VM SPV 5, LLC, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the motion by the appellant and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion by nonparty VM SPV 5, LLC, which is, in effect, for leave to respond to the appeal in the name of the plaintiff is granted (see CPLR 1018; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v McKenzie, 183 AD3d 574); and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion by nonparty VM SPV 5, LLC which is to extend the time to serve and file a brief is granted, and on or before June 26, 2026, nonparty VM SPV 5, LLC shall serve and file the brief via NYSCEF, if applicable, or, if NYSCEF is not mandated, serve the brief and upload a digital copy of the brief, with proof of service thereof, through the digital portal on this Court's website; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion by the appellant is dismissed as the appellant is required to be represented by counsel and the appellant's failure to appear by an attorney requires dismissal of the motion (see Martins v Liu, 216 AD3d 762; Gabayzadeh v Taylor, 639 F Supp 2d 298, 301-302; Jud. L § § 478, 484).
IANNACCI, J.P., VOUTSINAS, GOLIA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court