Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16560
S/sl
|
2003-11118
Robert N. Anderson, et al., respondents, v Michael Mastrangelo, appellant. (Index No. 3338/99)
| 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, Dutchess County, dated August 27, 2003.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's reply brief shall be served and filed on or before October 5, 2004.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16558
PL/sl
|
2004-03666
Dawn Bantum, respondent, v American Stock Exchange, LLC, et al., appellants, et al., respondents. (Index No. 23099/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 26, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellants' time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until January 5, 2005, and the joint 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
M16555
S/sl
|
2004-03993, 2004-04130
Mariann Berliner, appellant-respondent, v Ira Berliner, respondent-appellant. (Index No. 2357/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the respondent-appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 11, 2004, and April 16, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent-appellant shall serve and file his answering brief, including his points of argument on the cross appeal, on or before October 15, 2004 (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]).
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16573
O/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
NANCY E. SMITH
REINALDO E. RIVERA
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-07841 George Bisnoff, appellant, v Pammi Lazarus Bisnoff, respondent. (Index No. 7841/04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant, inter alia, to stay enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 11, 2004, pending hearing and determination of an appeal therefrom.
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
M16391
M/nal
|
2004-08245 Elizabeth Crespo, appellant, v Eugene Lombardo, respondent. (Index No. 29909/03)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Elizabeth Crespo from an order a of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 10, 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 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 Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16547
S/sl
|
2004-03191 April Daluise, etc., et al., respondents, v James Sottile, appellant.
(Index No. 12781/02)
| 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, Richmond County, dated February 24, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until October 4, 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
M16559
S/sl
|
2004-01280
Focus Interactive, Inc., respondent, v Infospace, Inc., appellant. (Index No. 11873/03)
| 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, Westchester County, dated January 5, 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
M16566
C/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
NANCY E. SMITH
REINALDO E. RIVERA
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-06583 Kevin Hinkson, appellant, v Veda Hinkson, respondent. (Index No. 25257/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant, inter alia, to stay all proceedings in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 23, 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.
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, RIVERA and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16553
CF/
|
2004-07672
Odertston Jean-Francois, et al., plaintiffs, Yves Volcy, plaintiff-respondent, v Town of Oyster Bay, et al., defendants- appellants. (Index No. 921/03)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 15, 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
M16556
PL/sl
|
2004-01959 Klim Kozinevich, et al., appellants, v Frank J. DeLaurentis, et al., respondents. (Index No. 22625/01)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the respondents 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, Kings County, dated February 2, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondents' time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until November 16, 2004, and the respondents' brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16578
S/sl
|
2004-03179 Tatiana Kuzmin, appellant, v Visiting Nurse Service of New York, et al., defendants, Oleg Beretsky, respondent. (Index No. 13483/01)
| 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 March 12, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until December 3, 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
M16550
CF/
|
2004-04600 Nicole LaMarca, respondent, v Robert Romanelli, etc., et al., appellants. (Index No. 2861/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION Application to Withdraw Appeal |
Application by the appellant Rich Mar Corporation to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 16, 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 Rich Mar Corporation is marked withdrawn.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16552
CF/
|
2004-04741 Antonio Lopez, appellant, v GEM Gravure Company, et al., respondents (and a third-party action). (Index No. 17939/02)
| 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 April 8, 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
M16574
A/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
THOMAS A. ADAMS
BARRY A. COZIER
ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.
|
2003-10036 Andrew McCormack, respondent, v Michael Kamalian, etc., et al., defendants; Dupee, Dupee & Monroe, P.C., nonparty- appellant.
(Index No. 6517/98)
| 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, Orange County, dated May 17, 2004.
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.
FLORIO, J.P., ADAMS, COZIER and LIFSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16567
C/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
NANCY E. SMITH
REINALDO E. RIVERA
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-06829 Nicole Myree, appellant, v Curley, LLC, et al., respondents. (Index No. 33063/01)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to file a notice of appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 23, 2003, and 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 motion is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to timely file the notice of appeal (see CPLR 5513[a]).
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, RIVERA and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16549
PL/sl
|
2004-02848 NYCTL 1999-1 Trust, et al., respondents, v 72-02 Northern Boulevard Realty Corp., et al., appellants. (Index No. 8508/03)
| 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 January 22, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellants' time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until November 26, 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
M16575
S/sl
|
2004-02824
North Queensview Homes, Inc., respondent, v RCN Telecom Services, Inc., et al., defendants- appellants, Sardoni Skanska ConstructionCompany, s/h/a Sordoni Construction, defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant, et al., defendant; Hicksville Paving, Inc., third-party defendant-respondent. (Index No. 26879/01)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant Sardoni Skanska Construction Company, s/h/a Sordoni Construction 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 5, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellants' time to perfect their respective appeals is enlarged until December 6, 2004, and the joint record or appendix on the appeals and the appellants' briefs must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M15412
A/sl
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2003-10475 Bala Hari Pillai, plaintiff, v Kathleen Pillai, respondent; Renee E. Schell, nonparty-appellant. (Index No. 20446/01)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 20, 2003, to strike the respondent's brief, inter alia, on the ground that it fails to comply with the provisions of the CPLR and the rules of this court (see CPLR 5528[a][1], [b]; 22 NYCRR 670.10.3[g]), and refers to matter dehors the record.
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 respondent's brief is deemed stricken; and it is further,
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, on or before October 29, 2004, the respondent shall serve and file a brief which complies with the CPLR and the rules of this court and does not refer to matter dehors the record.
RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16554
PL/sl
|
2004-06802
Silvio Santos, et al., respondents, v Intown Associates, et al., appellants. (Index No. 14206/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the respondents 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, Westchester County, dated July 28, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondents' time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until October 26, 2004, and the respondents' brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16561
S/sl
|
2004-00799
Sharon Sayet, respondent, v Sanford Sayet, appellant. (Index No. 200389/02)
| 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, Nassau County, dated December 19, 2003.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 30, 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
M16490
C/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
SONDRA MILLER
STEPHEN G. CRANE
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2002-08546, 2003-00782 Jo' Ell Sheppard-Mobley, etc., et al., plaintiffs-appellants, v Leslie King, etc., et al., defendants-respondents. (Index No. 14110/00)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondents Leslie A. King and Obstetrical & Gynecological Services of Rockville Centre for leave to reargue an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 13, 2002, which was determined by opinion and order of this court dated June 7, 2004, or in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the opinion and order of this court. Separate motion by the respondents Sheila Kumari-Subaiya and Promedica Imaging, P.C., for the same relief. Separate motion by the respondent Ira J. Spector for the same relief, and for leave to reargue an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 13, 2002, which was determined by decision and order of this court also dated June 7, 2004, or in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this court. Motion by the New York State Trial Lawyers Association and separate motions by University Associates in Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., Greater New York Hospital Association, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, the Combined Coordinating Council, Inc., and by Beth Israel Medical Center, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Montefiore Medical Center, Maimonides Medical Center, and Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center for leave to file papers as amicus curiae in connection with the above motions. Separate motion by New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the University of Rochester for the same relief and for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in the Court of Appeals.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motions and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motions by the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, University Associates in Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., Greater New York Hospital Association, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, the Combined Coordinating Council, Inc., Beth Israel Medical Center, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Montefiore Medical Center, Maimonides Medical Center, and Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center for leave to file papers as amici curiae in connection with the motions for leave to reargue or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals are granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion by New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the University of Rochester which is for leave to file papers as amicus curiae in connection with the motions for leave to reargue or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that branch of the motion of New York-Presbyterian Hospital and University of Rochester which is for leave to file an amicus brief with the Court of Appeals is denied, without prejudice to renewal in the Court of Appeals; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branches of the motions which are for leave to reargue are denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branches of the motions which are for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the opinion and order of this court dated June 7, 2004, are granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion by the respondent Ira J. Spector is otherwise denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the following question is certified to the Court of Appeals: Was the opinion and order of this court dated June 7, 2004, properly made?
Questions of law have arisen, which, in our opinion, ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals (see CPLR 5713).
FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16537
PL/sl
|
2004-00102
Sean Stack, respondent, v Ferncliff Cemetery Association, appellant. (Index No. 3385/03)
| 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 an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 7, 2003.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until October 24, 2004, 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
M16500
S/sl
|
2003-01365 John Stafford, respondent-appellant, v Viacom, Inc., defendant third-party plaintiff- respondent, 1515 Broadway Associates, L.P., etc., second third-party plaintiff-respondent, et al., defendant; SCS Systems, Inc., third party-defendant/third third-party plaintiff appellant-respondent, et al., third-party defendants; Lehr Construction Corp., second third party defendant appellant-respondent; LJB Services, Inc., second fourth-party plaintiff-respondent; Jovian Flooring, Inc., second fourth-party defendant appellant-respondent, et al., second fourth-party defendants. (Index No. 4691/96)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the respondent-appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect appeals and a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 21, 2003.
ORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellants-respondents' time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until November 1, 2004, and the joint record or appendix on appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][1]) and the appellants-respondents' briefs must be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent-appellant shall serve and file his answering brief, including his points of argument on the cross appeal in accordance with the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]).
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16551
PL/sl
|
2004-01113
Tridee Associates, Inc., respondent, v Board of Education of the City of New York, appellant. (Index No. 47478/97)
| 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 January 20, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until October 29, 2004, 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
M16577
R/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
NANCY E. SMITH
REINALDO E. RIVERA
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2003-09742 Andrea Winograd, et al., appellants, v David A. Price, etc., et al., respondents.
(Index No. 2374/99)
| 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, Rockland County, dated September 19, 2003.
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 in the above-entitled action is stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, RIVERA and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16488
M/nal
|
2004-08467 Robert Michael Woznicki, appellant, v Lucyna Woznicki, respondent. (Index No. 12215/99)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Robert Michael Woznicki from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated July 26, 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 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 Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16465
C/sl
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.
HOWARD MILLER
BARRY A. COZIER
PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
|
2004-07381 In the Matter of Dominick Angiolillo, Jr., et al., petitioners-respondents v Town of Greenburgh, et al., appellants-respondents, WBRC Corporation, et al., appellants. (Index No. 4830/00)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellants on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered July 23, 2004, as modified by an order of the same court entered September 1, 2004, to stay enforcement of the order as modified 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 granted and enforcement of the order dated July 23, 2004, as modified by an order of the same court entered September 1, 2004, is stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal on condition that the appeal is perfected on or before November 15, 2004; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before November 15, 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., H. MILLER, COZIER and SKELOS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M15938
A/sl
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
BARRY A. COZIER
ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.
|
2004-05238
In the Matter of Denise Bugdin, appellant, v James A. Bugdin, respondent. (Docket No. F-979/03)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal by Denise Bugdin from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated May 27, 2004. By order to show cause dated August 12, 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 July 2, 2004, issued pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(a), by each filing an affirmation or affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this court.
Now, on the court's own motion, and the papers filed in response to the order to show cause, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
KRAUSMAN, J.P., CRANE, COZIER and LIFSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16543
M/nal
|
2004-08432 In the Matter of Grace Czop, respondent, v Roy F. Czop, appellant. (Docket No. O-3450-04)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Roy F. Czop from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, dated September 7, 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
M16413
M/nal
|
2004-08188 In the Matter of Brian H. (Anonymous). Commissioner of the Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Gladys H. (Anonymous), respondent; Jose V. (Anonymous), appellant. (Docket Nos. N- 01895-02; N-23028-02)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Jose V. from an order of the Family Court, Kings 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 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
M16572
S/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
NANCY E. SMITH
REINALDO E. RIVERA
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-07964 In the Matter of Robert Edward J. (Anonymous), III. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Francisco P. (Anonymous), appellant; et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Marie Rae F. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Francisco P. (Anonymous), appellant; et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) (Docket Nos. B-13460-03, B-13424-03)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal by Francisco P. from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated July 23, 2004.
Now, on the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order is not appealable as of right and we decline to grant leave to appeal (see Family Ct Act § 1112).
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, RIVERA and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16417
M/nal
|
2004-08327 In the Matter of Donna Kirdahy, respondent, v Joseph E. Scalia, appellant. (Docket No. F-524-99)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Joseph E. Scalia from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk 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 Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16539
M/nal
|
2004-08497, 2004-08498 In the Matter of Bibi F. Lallmohamed, respondent, v Saheed Lallmohamed, appellant. (Docket No. O-16950-03)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeals by Saheed Lallmohamed from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, dated June 24, 2004, and September 21, 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
M16570
C/sl
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2003-11356 In the Matter of M.K.A. Realty, Inc., respondent, v Jeanne Gervasi, etc., et al., appellants. (Index No. 2727/01)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent to enlarge the record on appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated November 5, 2003, to include, inter alia, a Record of Appearance of the respondent Planning Board of the Town of Wallkill Work Session on November 6, 2000. Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until November 1, 2004, and the respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16411
M/nal
|
2004-08359 In the Matter of Elaine Maria, respondent, v Rovel Maria, appellant. (Index No. O-00084-03)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Rovel Maria from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 8, 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 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 Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16542
M/nal
|
2004-08520 In the Matter of Edward Pallan, respondent, v Lisa Papandrea, appellant. (Docket Nos. V-2253-94, V-2222-00, V-2253-94)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Lisa Papandrea from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated August 30, 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
M16557
S/sl
|
2003-09787
In the Matter of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, respondent, v Andrew Bigler, Sr., appellant.
(Index No. 24664/99)
| 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, Nassau County, dated September 15, 2003.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before October 6, 2004.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16546
PL/sl
|
2003-08799
In the Matter of Town of Eastchester, et al., petitioners, v New York State Board of Real Property Services, respondent.
| 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 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until December 1, 2004, 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
M16390
M/nal
|
2004-08156, 2004-08157 In the Matter of Teresa J. Vinson, respondent, v Melvin Vinson, appellant. (Docket No. F-09609-03)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeals by Melvin Vinson from two orders of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated May 18, 2004, and August 6, 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 Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16587
S/sl
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-08555 In the Matter of Kimberly M. Wilder, appellant, et al., petitioners, v Suffolk County Board of Elections, etc., et al., respondents.
(Index No. 21037/04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by Kimberly M. Wilder for leave to appeal to this court from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 28, 2004, and to enjoin, among others, the Suffolk County Board of Elections from printing or distributing or causing to be printed or distributed the ballot for the November 2, 2004, general election, 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 branch of the motion which is for leave to appeal is denied as unnecessary; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.
SANTUCCI, J.P., MASTRO, SPOLZINO and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16571
S/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
NANCY E. SMITH
REINALDO E. RIVERA
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2003-05506 The People, etc., respondent, v Maria Canales, a/k/a Maria Velez, appellant. (Ind. No. 7350/97)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant pro se on an appeal from a purported judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 11, 2003, for leave to prosecute the appeal from the purported judgment as a poor person, and for the assignment of counsel. By decision and order on motion dated October 1, 2003, the appellant was ordered to show cause why an order should not be entered dismissing the appeal from the purported judgment on the ground that no appeal lies from the purported judgment, as the purported judgment is nothing more than a proceeding to cause a judgment of the same court rendered October 25, 2002, to be brought to execution (see People v Crawford, 239 AD2d 515), and the appellant's motion for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel was held in abeyance in the interim.
Now, on the court's own motion and upon the papers filed in support of the appellant's motion and no papers having been filed in response to the order to show cause, it is
ORDERED that appeal is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant's motion for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, and for the assignment of counsel, is denied as academic.
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, RIVERA and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16584
A/sl
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.
SONDRA MILLER
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2002-05412 The People, etc., respondent, v Stephen Hargrove, a/k/a Stephon Hargroves, appellant. (Ind. No. 2181/01)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered June 10, 2002.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED 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 his brief on the appeal is enlarged until November 15, 2004.
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, MASTRO and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M16562
A/sl
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
THOMAS A. ADAMS
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, JJ.
|
2003-06468 The People, etc., respondent, v Tyrone Howard, appellant. (Ind. No. 66/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 27, 2003.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED 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 his brief on the appeal is enlarged until November 3, 2004.
PRUDENTI, P.J., KRAUSMAN, ADAMS and SPOLZINO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court