Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16522
S/sl
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
MYRIAM J. ALTMAN
SONDRA MILLER
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-05146 Stephen Afromowitz, respondent, v First Unum Life Insurance Company, appellant.
(Index No. 9335/97)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 2, 2004. By decision and order on motion of this court dated July 15, 2004, the appellant's motion to stay the trial in the above-entitled action was granted on condition that the appeal was perfected by August 18, 2004. The appeal has not been perfected.
Now, on the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that the stay granted by the decision and order on motion dated July 15, 2004, is vacated forthwith.
PRUDENTI, P.J., ALTMAN, S. MILLER and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16525
C/sl
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
|
2003-07252 Robert Anderson, appellant, v City University of New York at Queens College, respondent. (Motion No. M-66192)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant for leave to reargue an appeal from an order of the Court of Claims dated July 18, 2003, which was determined by decision and order of this court dated June 14, 2004.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied, with $100 costs.
PRUDENTI, P.J., SANTUCCI, SCHMIDT and MASTRO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16518
S/sl
|
2004-00932
Stephanie Cabrera, etc., et al., appellants, v City of New York, et al., respondents. (Index No. 22913/98)
| 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, Queens County, dated November 17, 2003.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellants' time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until October 8, 2004, 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
M16501
S/sl
|
2004-05579, 2004-06711 Sharon M. Chang, plaintiff-respondent, v Chunbukyo Church, et al., appellants, Sears Roebuck & Co., et al., defendants- respondents, et al., defendant (and a third-party action). (Appeal No. 1) Sharon M. Chang, plaintiff-respondent, v Chunbukyo Church, et al., defendants, Sears Roebuck & Co., et al., appellants (and a third-party action). (Appeal No. 2) (Index No. 32196/01)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Chunbukyo Church and David Kim from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 26, 2004, and separate appeals by Sears Roebuck & Co., Black and Decker (U.S.), Inc., and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., from an order of the same court dated also dated May 26, 2004. Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(a), it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff Sharon M. Chang shall serve and file her brief on the appeals on or before October 25, 2004; and it is further,
ORDERED that Sears Roebuck & Co., Black and Decker (U.S.), Inc., and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., shall serve and file reply briefs to the brief of Sharon M. Chang on or before November 5, 2004; and it is further,
ORDERED that Sears Roebuck & Co. and Black and Decker (U.S.), Inc., shall serve and file briefs in response to the appellant's brief of Chunbukyo Church and David Kim on or before November 5, 2004; and it is further,
ORDERED that Chunbukyo Church and David Kim shall serve and file a reply brief to the briefs of Sears Roebuck & Co. and Black and Decker (U.S.), Inc., on or before November 15, 2004.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16530
CF/
|
2004-03628 Raymond Couchi, respondent, v Howard Rothman, appellant. (Index No. 10494/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 22, 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
M16519
S/sl
|
2003-11016
Degree Security Systems, Inc., appellant, v F.A.B. Land Corp., respondent.
(Index No. 29739/01)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 5, 2003.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before October 12, 2004.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16520
S/sl
|
2003-09285
James DiGiacomo, et al., respondents-appellants, v Cabrini Medical Center, et al., appellants- respondents.
(Index No. 8324/98)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the respondents-appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on appeals and a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 15, 2003.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondents-appellants' reply brief which was submitted to the Clerk of the court is accepted for filing.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16504
PL/sl
|
2004-05725, 2004-05727
Lisa Freihofner, appellant, v Gregory Freihofner, respondent. (Index No. 5173/01)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant, in effect, to amend a decision and order of this court dated August 31, 2004, as granted the application by the appellant to enlarge the time to comply with so much of the prior decision and order on motion of this court dated July 28, 2004, which directed the appellant to perfect her appeal by September 1, 2004, by enlarging the appellant's time to perfect her appeal until September 13, 2004.
Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the decision and order on motion of this court dated August 31, 2004, is amended by deleting from the second decretal paragraph thereof the date "September 13, 2004," and substituting therefor the date "October 12, 2004"; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent's brief shall be served and filed on or before November 12, 2004; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Law Guardian's brief shall be served and filed on or before November 12, 2004; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant's reply brief, if any, shall be served and filed on or before November 22, 2004.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16497
O/nal
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P.
DANIEL F. LUCIANO
PETER B. SKELOS
ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.
|
2003-02899, 2003-10670
Raymond Garrigan, respondent, v Incorporated Village of Malverne, et al., appellants. (Index No. 4110/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellants to stay the trial in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 14, 2003, and November 13, 2003, respectively.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
SANTUCCI, J.P., LUCIANO, SKELOS and LIFSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16527
CF/
|
2004-05990 Delmy Guillen, respondent, v John Robalino, et al., appellants. (Index No. 11282/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated May 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
M16541
E/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
NANCY E. SMITH
REINALDO E. RIVERA
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-07979 Georgia Herring, etc., respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, appellant.
(Index No. 46616/95)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 20, 2004, to stay the trial in the above-entitled action 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.
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, RIVERA and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16507
PL/sl
MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P.
ANITA R. FLORIO
DANIEL F. LUCIANO
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
|
2003-05891
Ann Marie Hurley, appellant-respondent, v First Unum Life Insurance Company, respondent-appellant. (Index No. 9554/98)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
On the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that its decision and order dated September 13, 2004, in the above-entitled case is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order is substituted therefor:
Motion by the respondent-appellant on an appeal and cross appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 20, 2003, inter alia, to strike portions of the appellant-respondent's brief and reply brief, on the ground that they refer to matter dehors the record, and to enlarge its time to serve and file its reply 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 portions of the appellant-respondent's brief is granted to the extent that the following material is stricken from the appellant-respondent's brief: the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of page 34, starting with the words "One and one-half years later," through the fifth sentence of the same paragraph, continuing onto page 35, through the words "As of the filing of the brief"; and pages 40-41; on or before October 13, 2004, the appellant-respondent shall delete the above-referenced material from the copies of her brief on file with this court, and that branch of the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to strike portions of the appellant-respondent's reply brief is granted to the extent that the following material is stricken from the reply brief: (1) the second paragraph of page 5, starting with the words "Indeed, First Unum," and ending with the words "carpal tunnel syndrome"; (2) the fourth paragraph on page 30 starting with the words "The years of endless litigation," and continuing onto the second paragraph of page 31, ending with the words "unwarranted and improper"; (3) point VI on page 32; (4) the fourth sentence of the second paragraph of page 37, starting with "Indeed, Mrs. Hurley did attend," continuing on page 38, and ending with the fifth sentence of the same paragraph, ending with the words "the results were positive"; and (5) the first full sentence of page 45 starting with the words "Indeed, her attendance" and ending with the words "any potential breach"; on or before October 13, 2004, the appellant-respondent shall delete the above-referenced material from the copies of her reply brief on file with this court, 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 respondent-appellant's time to serve and file its reply brief is granted, and the respondent-appellant's time to serve and file a brief its reply brief is enlarged until November 12, 2004; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.
ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, LUCIANO and MASTRO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16505
Y/sl
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.
HOWARD MILLER
BARRY A. COZIER
PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
|
2004-05925 Carolina Jimenez, respondents, v T.J. Maxx, Inc., etc., appellant. (Index No. 27068/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant, in effect, to stay the trial of the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 10, 2004.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted and the trial of the above-entitled action is stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the respondents' time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until October 21, 2004 , and the respondents' brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
RITTER, J.P., H. MILLER, COZIER and SKELOS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16433
Y/sl
HOWARD MILLER, J.P.
SONDRA MILLER
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
|
2004-05272 Pauline LeBlanc, appellant, v Theordor Budman et al., respondents. (Index No. 22494/98)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motions by the respondents (1) Theodore M. Budman and Superior Materials, (2) Dani Tibor and Oser Kaszko, and (3) Jeffrey K. Goldsmith and Martin E. Gunther, respectively, to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered February 25, 2004, as untimely taken, and motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to take the appeal, if necessary.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motions and the papers filed in opposition and in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion by the respondents Jeffrey K. Goldsmith and Martin E. Gunther is granted and the appeal is dismissed as against them, without costs or disbursements (see Maddox v City of New York, 104 AD2d 430); and it is further,
ORDERED that motions of the remaining respondents are denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the appellant's motion which is to enlarge the time to take the appeal as to the respondents Theodore M. Budman, Superior Materials, Dani Tibor, and Oser Kaszko is denied as unnecessary, and that motion is otherwise denied.
H. MILLER, J.P., S. MILLER, KRAUSMAN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16509
Y/sl
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P.
HOWARD MILLER
THOMAS A. ADAMS
ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.
|
2004-04984 Levinson & Santoro Electric Corp., appellant, v Morse Diesel International, etc., respondent, et al., defendants.
(Index No. 28662/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 23, 2004, on the ground that the appellant waived appellate review of the issues which could be raised on 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 granted, and the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see Harris v Resnikoff, 118 AD2d 622); and it is further,
ORDERED that the stay granted by decision and order on motion of this court dated August 10, 2004, is hererby vacated.
SANTUCCI, J.P., H. MILLER, ADAMS and LIFSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16517
A/sl
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.
SONDRA MILLER
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-02711 Keith Lombardi, et al., appellants, v 180 Montague Street, LLC, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents, Eagle One Roofing Contractors, Inc., defendant-respondent; VJB Construction Corporation, third-party defendant-respondent. (Index No. 20874/01)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellants to stay the trial in the above-entitled action, pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 3, 2004.
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., S. MILLER, MASTRO and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16516
R/sl
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.
|
2004-04371 Elana Makris, etc., respondent, v Westchester County, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
(Index No. 246/97)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellants for leave to reargue their motion to stay all proceedings in the above-entitled action, including the trial, pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered April 16, 2004, which was determined by decision and order on motion of this court dated September 8, 2004, and upon reargument, to stay all proceedings in the above-entitled action, including the trial, pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and upon consent of the parties, it is
ORDERED that, the motion for leave to reargue is granted, and upon reargument, the motion to stay all proceedings in the above-entitled action, including the trial, pending hearing and determination of the appeal is granted on condition that the appeal is perfected on or before November 1, 2004; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before November 1, 2004, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, or the respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days notice.
RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and LIFSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16532
CF/
|
2004-06798 Craig Martin, appellant, v Radio Computing Services, Inc., respondent. (Index No. 13126/03)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 26, 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
M16533
CF/
|
2004-03071 Roselyn Northover, appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, defendant, Lisa Hassan, et al., respondents. (Index No. 16805/98)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 2, 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
M16514
S/sl
|
2004-03146
Maria Ontaneda, appellant, v Countrywide Insurance Company, respondent. (Index No. 11794/02)
| 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 February 24, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until December 6, 2004, 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
M16536
L/
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
DAVID S. RITTER
NANCY E. SMITH
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
|
1999-09111
Ann Marie Respass, respondent, v Brook Plaza Ambulatory Surgical Center, appellant, et al., defendants. (Index No. 38772/96)
| DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the appellant for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 18, 1999.
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 deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, SMITH, SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16499
S/sl
|
2003-11236, 2004-00992, 2004-06724
The Robert Plan Corporation, et al., appellants, v Perot Systems Corporation, respondent. (Index No. 17012/03)
| 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 appeals from orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 15, 2003, December 30, 2003, and July 15, 2004, respectively.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until October 7, 2004, 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
M16524
L/
|
2003-11106
Harvey Schlackman, et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v Robin S. Weingast & Associates, Inc., et al., appellants, Point Benefit Consultants, LLC, et al., defendants-respondents. (Index No. 16609/01)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the appellants Robin S. Weingast & Associates, Inc. and Robin S. Weingast, to withdraw their appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 18, 2003.
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 application is granted and the appeal by Robin S. Weingast & Associates, Inc. and Robin S. Weingast, is marked withdrawn.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16528
CF/
|
2004-03114 Miriam Lind Shane, appellant, v John Zappia, et al., respondents. (Index No. 8896/03)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 17, 2003.
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
M16513
S/sl
|
2004-03610 Paul Zilberfein, et al., respondents-appellants, v Palmer Terrace Cooperative, Inc., appellant-respondent. (Index No. 20085/98)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant-respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 16, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant-respondent shall serve and file its reply brief on or before October 15, 2004.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16498
S/sl
|
2004-01593
Harry Zweben, appellant, v Christopher D. Casa, et al., respondents. (Index No. 12117/01)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 9, 2003.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before October 7, 2004.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16397
M/nal
|
2004-08155 In the Matter of Dave Britton, appellant, v Ann Barwell, respondent. (Docket No. V-14543/02)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Dave Britton from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated August 12, 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 Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16508
Y/sl
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
MYRIAM J. ALTMAN
HOWARD MILLER
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2002-06543 In the Matter of Niena Cooper-Winfield, respondent, v Herman Gary, appellant. (Docket No. O-01702-02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant for leave to reargue an appeal from an order of the Family
Court, Kings County, dated June 28, 2002, which was determined by decision and order of this court dated July 6, 2004.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
PRUDENTI, P.J., ALTMAN, H. MILLER and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16407
M/nal
|
2004-08332 In the Matter of Valerie DiBernardo, respondent, v James P. DiBernardo, appellant. (Docket No. F-02808-88)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by James P. DiBernardo from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated August 18, 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
M16526
F/
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT
BARRY A. COZIER
ROBERT F. LIFSON, JJ.
|
2004-04526 In the Matter of Robert L. Farina, respondent, v Jenny McKevitt, appellant. (Docket No. V-2147-01)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION Motion for Poor Person Relief and to Assign New Counsel Family Court |
On the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that the decision and order on motion in the above-entitled matter dated August 17, 2004, is recalled and vacated and the following decision and order on motion is substituted therefore:
Motion by the appellant for leave to prosecute an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated May 13, 2004, as a poor person, and for the assignment of counsel.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal will be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the appellant, the respondent, and the Law Guardian, if any. The parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other (22 NYCRR 670.9[d][1][ii]; Family Ct Act § 1116); and it is further,
ORDERED that the stenographer(s) and/or the transcription service(s) is/are required promptly to make and certify two transcripts of the proceedings, if any, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (22 NYCRR 671.9); in the case of stenographers, both transcripts shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court, and the clerk of the Family Court shall furnish one of such certified transcripts to the appellant's counsel, without charge; in the case of transcription services, one transcript shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court and one transcript shall be delivered to the assigned counsel. Assigned counsel is directed to provide copies of said transcripts to all of the other parties to the appeal, including the Law Guardian, if any, when counsel serves the appellant's brief upon those parties; and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to Family Court Act § 1120 the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:
Charles E. Holster III
100 East Old Country Road - Suite 26
Mineola, New York 11501
(516) 747-2330
and it is further,
ORDERED that the assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with any scheduling order or orders issued pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]); and it is further,
ORDERED that assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.
PRUDENTI, P.J., SCHMIDT, COZIER, and LIFSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16398
M/nal
|
2004-08239, 2004-08240, 2004-08241 2004-08242, 2004-08243 In the Matter of Miosotis Feliz, respondent, v Julio Cesar Rojas, appellant. (Docket Nos. F-3536-02, P-2039-02)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeals by Julio Cesar Rojas from five orders of the Family Court, Westchester County, two dated October 3, 2003, and three dated January 14, 2004, July 21, 2004, and July 22, 2004, 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 of the Family Court proceedings 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 and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcripts are expected; or
(4) if the appellant is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeals, a motion in this court for leave to prosecute the appeals 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 appeals; 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 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
M16511
Y/sl
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.
HOWARD MILLER
BARRY A. COZIER
PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
|
2003-11454 In the Matter of Field Home-Holy Comforter, respondent, v Antonia Novello, etc., et al., appellants. (Index No. 10232/99)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellants to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 18, 2003.
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 motion is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellants' time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until October 14, 2004, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants' brief must be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,
ORDERED that no further enlargements of time will be granted.
RITTER, J.P., H. MILLER, COZIER and SKELOS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16409
M/nal
|
2004-08331, 2004-08333 In the Matter of LeVonn G. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, respondent; Cecelia G. (Anonymous), appellant. (Docket No. N-11117-02)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeals by Cecelia G. from two orders of the Family Court, Suffolk County, entered August 13, 2004, and August 16, 2004, 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 of the Family Court proceedings 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 and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcripts are expected; or
(4) if the appellant is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeals, a motion in this court for leave to prosecute the appeals 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 appeals; 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 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
M16420
M/nal
|
2003-04018
In the Matter of Claire Gargiulo, respondent, v Michael Gargiulo, appellant. (Docket Nos. F-2817-99, O-6640-02)
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
Appeal by Michael Gargiulo from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated March 20, 2003. The transcripts were received by the appellant on July 14, 2004, and pursuant to the scheduling order of this court dated October 9, 2003, the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding was to be perfected within 60 days of the date of receipt of the transcripts. The appeal has not been perfected. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(5) of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][5]), it is
ORDERED that the parties or their attorneys are 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 the scheduling order dated October 9, 2003, by each filing an affirmation or affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this court and serving one copy of the same on each other on or before October 14, 2004; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Clerk of this court, or his designee, is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order upon the parties or their attorneys.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16444
M/nal
|
2004-06085
In the Matter of Mark Goldstein, appellant, v Lauren Epidy, respondent. (Docket No. F-01440-03)
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
Appeal by Mark Goldstein from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, dated May 28, 2004. By scheduling order dated July 28, 2004, the appellant was directed to file one of the following in the office of the Clerk of the court, within 30 days after the date of the scheduling order:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there were no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there were such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript was received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript was not received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it was ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript was expected; or
(4) if the appellant was indigent and could not 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; or
(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal.
The appellant has failed to comply with the scheduling order. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(5) of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][5]), it is
ORDERED that the parties or their attorneys are 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 the scheduling order dated July 28, 2004, by each filing an affirmation or affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this court and serving one copy of the same on each other on or before October 14, 2004; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Clerk of this court, or his designee, is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order upon the parties or their attorneys.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16422
M/nal
|
2003-06668, 2003-06669
In the Matter of Frank E. Hauser, respondent, v Maria Lopez, appellant. (Docket Nos. V-03886-94, V-03887-94, O-2847-03)
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
Appeals by Maria Lopez from two orders of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated June 26, 2003, and June 27, 2003, respectively. The transcripts were received by the appellant in April 2004, and pursuant to the scheduling order of this court dated November 21, 2003, the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding was to be perfected within 60 days of receipt of the transcripts. The appeal has not been perfected. The attorney for the appellant indicated that the appeal would be withdrawn, but it has not been withdrawn. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(5) of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][5]), it is
ORDERED that the parties or their attorneys are 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 the scheduling order dated November 21, 2004, by each filing an affirmation or affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this court and serving one copy of the same on each other on or before October 14, 2004; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Clerk of this court, or his designee, is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order upon the parties or their attorneys.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16521
S/sl
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
DAVID S. RITTER
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
|
2004-02522, 2004-02524 In the Matter of Shondel Jackson, respondent, v Mark DeSouza, appellant. (Docket No. P-06630/00)
| DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(a)(3) to enlarge the time to perfect appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County, dated October 20, 2003, and February 16, 2004, respectively.
Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeals by causing the original papers constituting the record on the appeals to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]) and by serving and filing his brief on the appeals is enlarged until November 4, 2004; and it is further,
ORDERED that no further enlargements of time shall be granted.
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, KRAUSMAN and COZIER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16523
S/sl
MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P.
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
THOMAS A. ADAMS
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2004-02079 In the Matter of Armond McCloud, petitioner, v Charles Hirsch, respondent.
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Proceeding by the petitioner, a State inmate under sentence for conviction of a crime, pursuant to CPLR article 78, for a writ of mandamus. During the pendency of the proceeding, the petitioner moved pursuant to CPLR 1101 for permission to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person. By decision and order of this court dated May 3, 2004, that motion was denied, and the petitioner was given 120 days within which to pay the filing fee, or the proceeding would be dismissed. The petitioner has not complied with that directive, and 120 days have passed.
Now, on the court's own motion, and upon the petitioner's failure to comply with the decision and order of this court dated May 3, 2004, it is
ORDERED that the proceeding is dismissed.
ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16531
CF/
|
2004-06268 In the Matter of Mohawk Country Home School, Inc., et al., appellants, v Town Board of Town of Greenburgh, respondent. (Index No. 16422/03)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 10, 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
M16540
S/sl
THOMAS A. ADAMS, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.
|
2004-00790 In the Matter of Pinches Ostreicher, appellant, v Florence Pollack, respondent. (Docket No. V-9791-01)
| DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the Law Guardian pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(a)(3) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated December 30, 2003.
Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the application is granted and the Law Guardian's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until October 15, 2004, and the Law Guardian's brief must be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,
ORDERED that no further enlargements of time shall be granted.
ADAMS, J.P., CRANE, SPOLZINO and LIFSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16399
M/nal
|
2004-08260 In the Matter of Patricia Perez, respondent, v Mario Villamil, appellant. (Docket No. F-00968-96)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Mario Villamil from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated August 31, 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 Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16405
M/nal
|
2004-03631 In the Matter of Dianna Robison, respondent, v Ali Chettih, appellant. (Docket No. F-01821-03)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Ali Chettih from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County, dated August 16, 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 Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16534
S/sl
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
BARRY A. COZIER
ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.
|
2004-01620
In the Matter of Shaheim S. (Anonymous), appellant. (Docket No. D-3278-02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
On the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that its decision and order on motion dated September 14, 2004, in the above-entitled matter is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order on motion is substituted therefor:
Motion by the appellant on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated February 4, 2004, (1) to compel Milagros Martinez, a court reporter, to provide the stenographic transcripts of the proceedings which occurred on February 3, 2004, in the above-entitled matter, and (2) to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal.
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 compel the court reporter, Milagros Martinez, to provide the stenographic transcripts of the proceedings which occurred on February 3, 2004, in the above-entitled matter is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that on or before October 15, 2004, the attorney for the appellant is directed to personally serve the court reporter, Milagros Martinez, with a copy of this decision and order; and it is further,
ORDERED that on or before November 15, 2004, the court reporter, Milagros Martinez, shall serve upon the attorney for the appellant copies of the transcripts of the proceedings, which occurred on February 3, 2004, in the above-entitled matter; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event that court reporter, Milagros Martinez, does not serve the above-noted transcripts on the attorney for the appellant within the time provided by this decision and order, the appellant may serve and file a motion to hold Milagros Martinez in contempt of court, which motion shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Judiciary Law; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to section 670.4(a) of the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), the scheduling order dated June 10, 2004, is amended to provide that the appellant's time to perfect the appeal by causing the original papers constituting the record on the appeal to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]) and by serving and filing the brief on the appeal is enlarged until December 14, 2004.
KRAUSMAN, J.P., CRANE, COZIER and LIFSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16293
F/
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.
|
2004-05220 The People, etc., plaintiff, v Jamar Ali, defendant. (Ind. No. 10887/99)
| DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the defendant, pursuant to CPL 450.15 and 460.15 for a certificate granting leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 1, 2004, which has been referred to me for determination.
Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the application is denied.
ANITA R. FLORIO
Associate Justice
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16512
Y/sl
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.
HOWARD MILLER
BARRY A. COZIER
PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
|
2003-11253, 2003-11254, 2003-11256
The People, etc., respondent, v Lenny Varughese, Stanley Varughese and Ashish Shah, appellants. (Ind. No. 1229/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered November 25, 2003.
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 motion is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until October 14, 2004, and the respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
RITTER, J.P., H. MILLER, COZIER and SKELOS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court