Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21887
S/sl
|
2004-07790, 2004-09009 The Cadle Company, respondent, v Organes Enterprises, Inc., et al., appellants, etc., et al., defendants. (Index No. 12677/01)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 28, 2004, and September 8, 2004, respectively.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellants' time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until April 26, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeals and the appellants' brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21855
R/sl
THOMAS A. ADAMS, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2005-01166 Dorothy M. DiSanto, respondent, v Frank J. DiSanto, appellant.
(Index No. 30689/98)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 26, 2005, inter alia, to stay enforcement of the order, pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
ADAMS, J.P., SANTUCCI, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21883
S/sl
|
2004-07218 EMI Realty Corporation, appellant, v 241-247 Hempstead Turnpike, Inc., et al., respondents. (Index No. 8724/98)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 3, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 4, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21879
CF/
|
2004-09698 Estate of James Macchia, et al., respondents, v County of Nassau, et al., defendants, Merana Development Corp., et al., appellants (and a third-party action). (Index No. 13927/01)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the appellant Eva Construction & Development Co., Inc. to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 29, 2004.
Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal by Eva Construction & Development Co., Inc. is marked withdrawn.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21805
C/sl
SONDRA MILLER, J.P.
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2003-11096, 2004-04943 Gihon, LLC, respondent, v 501 Second Street, LLC, appellant. (Index No. 3446/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent on appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 22, 2003, and a judgment of the same court dated November 13, 2003, respectively, (1) for leave to reargue so much of its prior cross motion which was to dismiss the appeals on the ground that appellate review of the issues raised on the appeals is barred by the doctrine of Bray v Cox (38 NY2d 350), (2) in effect, to dismiss the appeals on the ground that the appendix contains matters dehors the record and omits matter which is necessary to consider the issues raised on the appeals, (3) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief, and (4) to impose a sanction upon the appellant.
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 for leave to reargue is granted, and upon reargument, so much of this court's decision and order on motion dated November 26, 2004, as denied the branch of the respondent's cross motion which was to dismiss the appeals on the ground that appellant review of the issues raised on the appeals is barred by the doctrine of Bray v Cox (38 NY2d 350), without prejudice to raising the argument in the respondent's brief on the appeals, is recalled and vacated, and a provision referring that branch of the cross motion to the bench hearing the appeals for determination upon the argument or submission of the appeals is substituted therefor; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is, in effect, to dismiss the appeal is denied on condition that on or before March 15, 2005, the appellant shall (1) serve and file a supplemental appendix containing the papers the respondent submitted in opposition to the underlying motion which resulted in the order dated October 22, 2003, and (2) delete or remove from all copies of the appendix on file with this court page L-121, and that branch of the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to serve and file the respondent's brief is granted; the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until April 18, 2005, and the respondent's brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.
S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, MASTRO and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21822
A/sl
DANIEL F. LUCIANO, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
STEVEN W. FISHER
ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.
|
2003-08378, 2003-08381 Jennie Realty, LLC, respondent, v TSO General Corporation, appellant. (Index No. 8736/00)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant to recall and vacate so much of a decision and order on motion of this court dated May 24, 2004, entitled "In the Matter of the Dismissal of Causes for Failure to Perfect - May 2004 Calendar" as dismissed appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 25, 2003, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered June 13, 2003, for failure to timely perfect, and to reinstate the appeals, and to enlarge the time to perfect the appeals.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
LUCIANO, J.P., CRANE, FISHER and LIFSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21872
O/sl
BARRY A. COZIER, J.P.
DAVID S. RITTER
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
|
2003-10841 Lillian Katz, appellant, v State of New York, respondent. (Claim No. 106346)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent on an appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, dated November 3, 2003, to remove the appeal from the calendar of February 28, 2005, to recalendar the appeal, and to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 23, 2005, and the respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant's reply brief, if any, shall be served and filed on or before April 7, 2005; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent shall not be permitted to participate at oral argument of the appeal.
COZIER, J.P., RITTER, SPOLZINO and SKELOS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21876
S/sl
|
2004-07840
Maria Korotun, et al., appellants, v Incorporated Village of Bayville, etc., et al., respondents. (Index No. 3134/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 19, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellants' time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 4, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants' brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21859
R/sl
THOMAS A. ADAMS, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2004-08989 Roger A. Mason, appellant, v Leslaw J. Gredysa, respondent. (Index No. 23578/94)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered August 23, 2004, for an order declaring, inter alia, in effect, that he can take an appeal from a proposed resettled judgment to be entered in the above-entitled action, without filing a notice of appeal from that resettled judgment, and application by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the application and the papers filed in relation thereto, and upon the stipulation of the parties, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until June 7, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ADAMS, J.P., SANTUCCI, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21885
S/sl
|
2004-07362
John V. Muzio, appellants, v James T. Brown, et al., respondents. (Index No. 01-007403)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 7, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellants' time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 18, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants' brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21880
S/sl
|
2004-07611
Margarita Reyes, appellant, v City of New York, defendant, Morton Tabak, et al., respondents. (Index No. 29553/01)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 28, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 20, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21853
A/sl
HOWARD MILLER, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-01690, 2004-05854 Richard Rivera, appellant, v Juan G. Toruno, respondent. (Index No. 5969/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent on appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 14, 2004, and June 1, 2004, respectively, inter alia, to strike pages 18 through 57 of the record on appeal on the ground that it contains matter dehors the record, to dismiss the appeal from the order dated June 1, 2004, on the ground that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, and to enlarge his time to serve and file a brief.
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 to strike pages 18 through 57 of the record on appeal is granted, those pages of the record are stricken, and on or before March 15, 2005, the appellant shall either remove those pages from the copies of the record on appeal on file with this court, or serve and file a replacement record on appeal that does not contain those pages; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is granted, and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until April 15, 2005; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal from the June 1, 2004 order is held in abeyance and referred to the justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission of the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.
H. MILLER, J.P., CRANE, SPOLZINO and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21748
M/nal
|
2005-01367 Carl A. Scheuering, appellant, v Nancy Scheuering, respondent. (Index No. 4350-03 )
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Carl A. Scheuering from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated January 11, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled action shall be perfected within 60 days after the appellant receives the transcripts of the minutes of the action in the Supreme Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received. In cases where there are no minutes to be transcribed, the appeal in the above-entitled action shall be perfected within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes in the Supreme Court action to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21877
S/sl
|
2004-07656
Robert Schirmer, et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v Robert A. Penkert, defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant; M & R Marcus Company East Meadow, Ltd., third-party defendant-respondent. (Action No. 1) (Index No. 000364/97) Robert Schirmer, et al., plaintiffs, v Utica First Insurance Company, defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent; Robert A. Penkert, third-party defendant-appellant. (Action No. 2) (Index No. 022366/98) Robert A. Penkert, d/b/a Woodcleft Cabinet Co., appellant, v Utica First Insurance Company, et al., respondents. (Action No. 3) (Index No. 022464/99)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court,Nassau County, dated June 4, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until May 2, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21886
S/sl
|
2004-05580
Christopher Selletti, appellant, v Thomas Liotti, respondent. (Index No. 11169/00)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 21, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 23, 2005, and the respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21878
S/sl
|
2004-07594
Milton B. Shapiro, etc., et al., appellants, v Deborah Shapiro Kurtzman, respondent, et al., defendants. (Index No. 7875/01)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated July 13, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellants' time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 25, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants' brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21882
S/sl
|
2004-07532
Peter Somma, appellant, v Tiziana Somma, respondent. (Index No. 5752/04)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 9, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 23, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21890
S/sl
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.
DANIEL F. LUCIANO
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
|
2004-05692 Rubin Sterngass, appellant, v Town Board of the Town of Clarkstown, etc., et al., respondents. (Index No. 7695/03)
| DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated May 26, 2004.
Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that on the court's own motion so much of a decision and order on motion of this court dated February 22, 2005, entitled "In the Matter of the Dismissal of Causes for Failure to Perfect - February 2005 Calendar", as dismissed the above entitled appeal, is recalled and vacated, and the appeal is reinstated; and it is further,
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 28, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
RITTER, J.P., LUCIANO, MASTRO and SKELOS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21870
S/sl
|
2004-07540
Manuel Sucuzhanay, plaintiff respondent-appellant, v Brian Lancaster, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs respondents-appellants, DNA Construction, defendant third-party defendant second-third-party plaintiff appellant-respondent; Metras Construction Corp., second-third-party defendant-respondent. (Index No. 10699/00)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant-respondent and the respondents-appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal and cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 2, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant-respondent's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 14, 2005, and the joint record on appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][1]) and the appellant-respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,
ORDERED that the defendants third-party plaintiffs respondents-appellants shall serve and file their answering brief, including their points of argument on their cross appeal, on or before April 19, 2005 (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the plaintiff respondent-appellant shall serve and file his answering brief, including his points of argument on his cross appeal, on or before May 24, 2005 (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent shall serve and file its brief on or before June 29, 2005; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant-respondent shall serve and file its reply brief on or before August 4, 2005; and the respondents-appellants shall serve and file their respective reply briefs on or before August 19, 2005.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21875
CF/
|
2004-10390 Verizon Yellow Pages Company, f/k/a Bell Atlantic Yellow Pages Co., respondent, v Robert E. Link, appellant. (Index No. 22976/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 24, 2004.
Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21873
CF/
|
2004-05869, 2004-06210, 2005-01029 Robert D. Wilson, et al., appellants-respondents, v Hallen Construction Corporation, respondent- appellant. (Index No. 6828/95)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the respondent-appellant on appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 28, 2004, a judgment of the same court entered June 14, 2004, and judgment of the same court, dated December 22, 2004, to withdraw a cross appeal from the judgment entered June 14, 2004 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2004-06210).
Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the application is granted and the cross appeal from the judgment entered June 14, 2004, pending under Appellate Division Docket No. 2004-06210 is marked withdrawn.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21884
S/sl
|
2004-06555 Petro Yedynak, appellant, v Citnalta Construction Corporation, respondent. (Index No. 26952/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 15, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 17, 2005, and the respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21888
CF/
|
2004-10674 John Zazulka, appellant, v Susan Zazulka, et al., respondents. (Index No. 5994/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 19, 2004.
Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21808
M/nal
|
2005-01512, 2005-01513 In the Matter of Jessica C. (Anonymous), appellant. (Docket No. D-05307/04)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeals by Jessica C. from two orders of the Family Court, Richmond County, dated December 29, 2004, and January 18, 2005, respectively. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeals in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes in the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeals; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcripts have been received, and indicating the date received; or
(3) if the transcripts have not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that they have been ordered, the date thereof and the date by which the transcripts are expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeals; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeals to show cause why the appeals should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21861
A/sl
HOWARD MILLER, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2005-00794 In the Matter of Sean Curry, et al., petitioners, v Cameo Cullen, respondent.
(Docket Nos. V-26363/00, O-16832/04, V-16833/04, V-17109/04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent, inter alia, for leave to appeal to this court from a transcript of the Family Court, Kings County, dated December 16, 2004, and to stay all proceedings in the above-entitled matter pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied (see Ojeda v Metropolitan Playhouse, 120 AD2d 717).
H. MILLER, J.P., CRANE, SPOLZINO and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21810
M/nal
|
2005-01542 In the Matter of Louis J. Kaplan, appellant, v Mari F. Smith, respondent. (Docket No. F-15448-04)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Louis J. Kaplan from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated January 13, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) if the appellant is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeal, a motion in this court for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101. Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit from the appellant, stating either that he or she qualified for assigned counsel upon application to the Family Court and that his or her financial status has not changed since that time, or that he or she had retained counsel or appeared pro se in the Family Court, and listing his or her assets and income; or
(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21850
R/sl
THOMAS A. ADAMS, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2003-04280 In the Matter of Elaine Powell, respondent, v Kenneth Lewis, appellant. (Docket No. F-365/00)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated April 15, 2003, on the ground, inter alia, that the appeal was not timely taken, or, in the alternative, to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on the appeal.
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 to dismiss the appeal is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on the appeal is granted, and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 21, 2005; and it is further,
ORDERED that no further enlargements of time shall be granted.
ADAMS, J.P., SANTUCCI, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21747
M/nal
|
2005-01363 In the Matter of Dabari S. (Anonymous). Miracle Makers, Inc., petitioner-respondent; Dawn S. (Anonymous), appellant et al., respondent. (Docket Nos. B-15099/99, B-14352/00)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Dawn S. from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated November 17, 2004. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) if the appellant is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeal, a motion in this court for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101. Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit from the appellant, stating either that he or she qualified for assigned counsel upon application to the Family Court and that his or her financial status has not changed since that time, or that he or she had retained counsel or appeared pro se in the Family Court, and listing his or her assets and income; or
(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21752
M/nal
|
2005-01437 In the Matter of Andrew W. Segale, appellant, v Heather Segale, respondent. (Docket No. V-11415/03)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Andrew W. Segale from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated January 18, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes in the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21871
Y/sl
THOMAS A. ADAMS, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2004-11073 In the Matter of Tracey Simpson, respondent, v Mary Bellere, et al., appellants. (Docket No. V-09920-94)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by Debra Joy Friedenberg, Esq., counsel for the appellants, in effect, for leave to withdraw as counsel on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated November 18, 2004, and to grant the appellants leave to prosecute the appeal as poor persons.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is, in effect, for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted, and Debra Joy Friedenberg, Esq. is relieved from representing the appellants with respect to the instant appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that Debra Joy Friedenberg, Esq., is directed to serve all the appellants with a copy of this decision and order on motion, with notice of entry, by one of the methods specified in CPLR 2103(c), on or before March 7, 2005, and shall file proof of such service with the Clerk of this court; and it is further,
ORDERED that no further proceedings shall be taken against the appellants without leave to the court, until the expiration of 30 days after service upon it of a copy of this decision and order on motion; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for leave to prosecute the appeal as poor persons is denied with leave to the appellants to renew, on or before March 28, 2005, upon the submission of proper papers establishing that they are entitled to poor person relief including the affidavits of each of the appellants setting forth their full financial situation including all assets, both real and personal, as well as any and all sources of income, and itemized expenses.
ADAMS, J.P., SANTUCCI, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21881
K/nal
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
ANITA R. FLORIO
HOWARD MILLER
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
|
2000-07192
In the Matter of Michael H. Sussman, a suspended attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 2042117)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT |
Motion by the respondent Michael H. Sussman for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law. By opinion and order of this court dated June 10, 2002, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. By decision and order on motion of this court dated July 9, 2002, his motion to modify the order of suspension to allow him to represent three clients in pending criminal matters during the period of his suspension was denied. By decision and order on motion of this court dated December 8, 2003, the motion for reinstatement was held in abeyance, and the matter was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness for an investigation and report on the respondent's current fitness to be an attorney. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on February 5, 1986.
Upon the papers before the court, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that, effective immediately, the respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law and the Clerk of the court is directed to restore the name of Michael H. Sussman to the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.
PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21749
M/nal
|
2005-01406 In the Matter of Donna L. Svoboda, respondent, v Glenn M. Svoboda, appellant. (Docket No. F-2163-99)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Glenn M. Svoboda from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated January 6, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes in the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21801
M/nal
|
2005-01440 In the Matter of Joseph T. (Anonymous). Nassau County Department of Social Services, appellant; Roseanne T. (Anonymous), respondent. (Proceeding No. 1 )
In the Matter of Michelle T. (Anonymous). Nassau County Department of Social Services, appellant; Roseanne T. (Anonymous), respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) (Docket Nos. N-5116/04, N-5117/04)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Nassau County Department of Social Services from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated January 18, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceedings shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes in the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21785
M/nal
|
2005-01444 In the Matter of Janice Vega, appellant-respondent, v Jeffrey Pollack, respondent-appellant. (Docket No. V-01111/99)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated January 27, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal and cross appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant-respondent or the respondent-appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant-respondent shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal and/or cross appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal and/or the cross-appeal shall not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21897
R/sl
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.
DANIEL F. LUCIANO
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
|
2005-01349 In the Matter of Thomas V. White, deceased. Richard White, appellant; Stephanie White, respondent. (File No. P-433/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant on an appeal from an order of the Surrogate's Court, Richmond County, dated January 7, 2005, to stay all proceedings to enforce the order pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
RITTER, J.P., LUCIANO, MASTRO and SKELOS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21914
F/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
REINALDO E. RIVERA
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-01464 The People, etc., respondent, v Tito Greene, appellant. (Ind. No. 877/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION Motion Pro se to Relieve Counsel of Assignment |
On the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that the decision and order on motion in the above-entitled case, dated February 16, 2005, is recalled and vacated and the following decision and order on motion is substituted therefore:
Motion by the appellant pro se to relieve counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered February 9, 2004, to strike the brief filed by assigned counsel, and for assignment of Steven Bernhard or other counsel as new counsel, or for leave to serve and file a supplemental pro se brief. The appellant's motion to dispense with printing and for the assignment of counsel was granted on April 12, 2004, and September 27, 2004, and the following named attorney was assigned to prosecute the appeal:
Martin Goldberg, Esq.
P.O. Box 326
Franklin Square, New York 11010
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branches of the motion which are to relieve assigned counsel, to strike the brief filed by assigned counsel, and for the assignment of new counsel are granted; the brief filed by assigned counsel is stricken, and assigned counsel is directed to turn over all papers in the action to new counsel herein assigned; and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to County Law § 722 the following named attorney is assigned to prosecute the appeal:
Raymond E. Kerno, Esq.
1527 Franklin Avenue
Mineola, New York 11501
and it is further,
ORDERED that upon service of a copy of this decision and order upon it, the Department of Probation is hereby authorized and directed to provide assigned counsel with a copy of the pre-sentence report prepared in connection with the defendant's sentencing, including the recommendation sheet and any prior reports on the defendant which are incorporated or referred to in the report; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged; assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with this court's rules (see 22 NYCRR 670.1 et seq.) and written directions; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.
FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, RIVERA and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21869
S/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
BARRY A. COZIER
SONDRA MILLER
FRED T. SANTUCCI, JJ.
|
2003-05729
The People, etc., respondent, v Paul Wellington, appellant. (Ind. No. 1123/00)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
On the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that its decision and order on motion dated February 17, 2005, in the above-entitled case is amended by deleting from the preamble thereof the word "Suffolk", and substituting therefor the word "Nassau".
FLORIO, J.P., COZIER, S. MILLER and SANTUCCI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M21858
R/sl
THOMAS A. ADAMS, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2005-01255 The People, etc., ex rel. James Burgess, petitioner, v William E. Phillips, etc., respondent.
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the petitioner, a State inmate under sentence for conviction of a crime, pursuant to CPLR 1101 for permission to prosecute the above-entitled proceeding as a poor person.
Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event that the filing fee has not been paid within 120 days from the date of this order the proceeding shall be dismissed (see CPLR 1101[d]).
The allegations of merit contained in the petitioner's affidavit in support of the motion fail to establish that the proceeding is not frivolous (see CPLR 1101[a]).
ADAMS, J.P., SANTUCCI, GOLDSTEIN and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court