Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M10498

E/sl

HOWARD MILLER, J.P.

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

ROBERT W. SCHMIDT

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-06546 Sam Costanza, appellant, v Chananya Gold, et al., defendants; Kenneth B. Hawco, nonparty- respondent. (Index No. 41439/00)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the nonparty-respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 23, 2003, or alternatively, to enlarge the 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 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 is granted, and the nonparty-respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until May 24, 2004, and the nonparty-respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.

H. MILLER, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M10479

C/sl

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.

NANCY E. SMITH

HOWARD MILLER

GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.

2003-10717 In the Matter of Mark Ahearn, respondent, v Susan Kains, appellant. (Docket No. F-4822/02)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Appeal by Susan Kains from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County, dated September 17, 2003. By order to show cause dated March 19, 2004, the parties or their attorneys were directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding for failure to comply with a scheduling order dated January 9, 2004, issued pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(a).

Now, on the court's own motion, and no papers having been filed in response to the order to show cause, it is

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to comply with the scheduling order dated January 9, 2004.

RITTER, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M10494

M/nal

2004-03013 In the Matter of Vincent H. (Anonymous), appellant. (Docket No. D-4740/03)

SCHEDULING ORDER

Appeal by Vincent H. from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated March 9, 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 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 Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M10491

M/nal

2004-03018 In the Matter of Mona Khanna, respondent, v Rajat Suresh Bhatt, appellant. (Docket No. O-19922/03)

SCHEDULING ORDER

Appeal by Rajat Suresh Bhatt from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated March 15, 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 Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M10189

R/sl

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

DAVID S. RITTER

HOWARD MILLER

THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.

2001-03788 The People, etc., respondent, v Phillip Almeda, appellant. (Ind. No. 143/00)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant pro se, in effect, to enlarge the judgment roll on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 5, 2001, to include a transcript of the proceedings which occurred in the Supreme Court, Kings County, in the above-entitled action on February 22, 2000.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition and relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted, and the transcript of the proceedings which occurred on February 22, 2000, which was submitted to this court is accepted for filing, and the judgment roll is deemed enlarged.

PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M10488

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.

HOWARD MILLER

GLORIA GOLDSTEIN

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.

1999-11047 The People, etc., respondent, v Dimas Perez, appellant. (Ind. No. 44/98)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant to enlarge the judgment roll on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 5, 1999, to include a DD-5 report of Detective Kennedy dated April 10, 1998, and for leave to serve and file a supplemental brief on the appeal.

Cross motion by the respondent to enlarge the time to serve and file a respondent's brief on the appeal.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and cross motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the branch of the appellant's motion which is to enlarge the judgment roll is granted, and the DD-5 report of Detective Kennedy dated April 10, 1998, which was submitted to this court is accepted for filing, and the judgment roll is deemed enlarged; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the appellant's motion which is for leave to serve and file a supplemental brief is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appellant shall file nine copies of the supplemental brief and serve one copy on the District Attorney on or before May 24, 2004; and it is further,

 ORDERED that the respondent's time to serve and file a respondent's brief is enlarged until June 24, 2004, and the respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.

RITTER, J.P., H. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court