Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30869
R/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
JOSEPH COVELLO, JJ.
|
2005-08999 Eduard Abramov, respondent, v Visan Fuel Oil Co., Inc., et al., appellants.
(Index No. 5918/05)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellants to the stay the trial in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 5, 2005.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and upon the consent of the parties, 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 on condition that the appeal is perfected on or before December 15, 2005; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before December 15, 2005, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, or the respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days notice.
SCHMIDT, J.P., SANTUCCI, KRAUSMAN and COVELLO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30906
C/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
JOSEPH COVELLO, JJ.
|
2005-01568, 2005-05585 Jose Canar Astudillo, plaintiff-respondent, v Puissance Enterprises, LLC, defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent, et al., defendant; BRC Iron Works, Inc., third-party defendant second third-party defendant fourth third-party defendant; Telemark Construction Management New York, LLC, second third-party plaintiff-respondent; Facility Service Corp., second third-party defendant third third-party plaintiff- respondent, fourth third-party plaintiff; Corporate Contractors Ltd., et al., third third-party defendants- appellants. (Index Nos. 35570/01, 75059/02, 75303/02, 75899/02, 75414/03)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the third third-party defendant-appellant Corporate Contractors, Ltd., to stay the trial in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 12, 2005, and April 11, 2005, respectively. Separate motion by the third third-party defendant-appellant Nite & Day Gate & Security Services, Inc., for the same relief.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motions and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motions are denied.
SCHMIDT, J.P., SANTUCCI, KRAUSMAN and COVELLO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30853
O/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
JOSEPH COVELLO, JJ.
|
2005-03023 Myrtle Blair, respondent, v City of New York, defendants, Clint Brooks, et al., appellants. (Index No. 8095/03)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellants 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, Queens County, dated December 14, 2004.
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 all proceedings in the above-entitled action, including the trial, are stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
SCHMIDT, J.P., SANTUCCI, KRAUSMAN and COVELLO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30890
E/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2004-03479 Denise Cicione, etc., et al., appellants, v Bruce Meyer, etc., et al., respondents. (Index No. 8768/99)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondents Bruce Meyer, Anthony Royek, and University Associates in OB-GYN, P.C., to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered March 12, 2004.
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 time of the respondents Bruce Meyer, Anthony Royek, and University Associates in OB-GYN, P.C., to serve and file a brief is enlarged until October 18, 2005, and the brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
FLORIO, J.P., CRANE, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30888
Y/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2005-04581 Dune Deck Owners Corp., respondent, v Mylene Liggett, et al., appellants. (Index No. 14938/03)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellants to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated April 15, 2005.
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 appellants' time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 6, 2006, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants' brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
FLORIO, J.P., CRANE, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30879
E/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2005-08968 Juan Vicente Echeverria, respondent, v Estate of Marvin L. Linder, etc., et al., defendants, JEK Enterprises, Inc., et al., appellants. (Index No. 18666/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellants on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 22, 2005, to stay enforcement of a judgment of the same court dated March 18, 2005, pending hearing and determination of the appeal from the order.
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., CRANE, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30896
S/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2005-03239 Brian D. Faulkner, appellant, v Ronald S. Scheinzeit, etc., et al., respondents. (Index No. 00-4734)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
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, Dutchess County, dated February 22, 2005.
Now, on the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order dated February 22, 2005, is not appealable as of right and we decline to grant leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701[a]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the application is denied as academic.
FLORIO, J.P., CRANE, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30862
O/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2004-09242 William S. Federkiel, appellant, v Long Island Power Authority, et al., respondents. (Index No. 17396/00)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 21, 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 it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until November 7, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,
ORDERED that no further enlargements of time shall be granted.
FLORIO, J.P., CRANE, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30840
S/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
JOSEPH COVELLO, JJ.
|
2005-03246
Muriel Feller, respondent, v Irene Davis, appellant, et al., defendants. (Appeal No. 1) (Index No. 28359/03) 2005-07424 Barbara Goldstein, respondent, v Irene Davis, appellant, et al., defendants. (Appeal No. 2) (Index No. 8323/04)
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
Application by the appellant on appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 17, 2005, and June 9, 2005, respectively, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2), to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal from the order dated February 17, 2005 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2005-03246).
Now, on the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that the appellant show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the above-captioned appeals on the ground that the orders appealed from are not appealable as of right and the appellant has not sought leave to appeal (see Garcia v Jomber Realty, 264 AD2d 809, 810; Sainz v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp, 106 AD2d 500), by filing an affirmation or affidavit on that issue with the Clerk of this court on or before October 28, 2005; and it is further,
ORDERED that the application to enlarge time is held in abeyance in the interim; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Clerk of this court, or his designee, shall serve a copy of this order to show cause on the attorneys for the parties to the appeals by regular mail.
SCHMIDT, J.P., SANTUCCI, KRAUSMAN and COVELLO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30905
S/sl
|
2005-01583, 2005-02297
Joseph Ferenczi, et al., respondents, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, appellant. (Index No. 25012/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 14, 2004, and December 1, 2004, respectively.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until November 14, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeals 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
M30902
S/sl
|
2005-03582 Roxann Field, appellant, v Waldbaum, Inc., d/b/a Waldbaum's Supermarkets, etc., respondent. (Index No. 5397/03)
| 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, Nassau County, dated March 21, 2005.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until December 7, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30926
L/
HOWARD MILLER, J.P.
THOMAS A. ADAMS
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-11320 Fleet National Bank, respondent, v Formula Equipment, Inc., f/k/a Formula Equipment Leasing, Inc., et al., defendants, G.E. Commercial Distribution Finance, Inc., et al., appellants. (Index No. 4417/04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION Withdraw Appeal on Stipulation |
Application to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated December 13, 2004.
Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties, dated September 1, 2005, it is
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.
H. MILLER, J.P., ADAMS, SPOLZINO and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30843
K/sl
HOWARD MILLER, J.P.
THOMAS A. ADAMS
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-11320
Fleet National Bank, respondent, v Formula Equipment, Inc., f/k/a Formula Equipment Leasing, Inc., et al., defendants, G.E. Commercial Distribution Finance, Inc., et al., appellants. (Index No. 4147/04)
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
The defendants G.E. Commercial Distribution Finance, Inc., and General Electric Capital Corporation having appealed to this court from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated December 13, 2004, and having perfected the appeal on February 15, 2005, the respondent having filed a brief on March 18, 2005, and the appellants having filed a reply brief on March 29, 2005, the matter was placed on this court's calendar for September 15, 2005. By letter dated September 2, 2005, counsel for the appellants advised this court that the instant appeal had been rendered academic by virtue of the entry of a judgment in the action on June 29, 2005. A stipulation withdrawing the appeal was appended to the letter.
Now, on the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that the parties or their counsel are directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions and/or costs, if any, against the parties to the appeal or their respective counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.2(g) as this court may deem appropriate 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 all parties to the action on or before November 4, 2005.
Section 670.2(g) of the rules of this court provides, in relevant part, that "[i]f a cause or the underlying action or proceeding is wholly or partially settled * * * or if any cause should not be calendared * * * for some other reason, the parties or their counsel shall immediately notify the court," and "[a]ny attorney or party who, without good cause shown, fails to comply with the requirements of this subdivision shall be subject to the imposition of such costs and/or sanctions as the court may direct" (22 NYCRR 670.2[g]).
The Clerk of this court, or his designee, is directed to serve a copy of this order to show cause upon counsel for the respective parties by regular mail.
H. MILLER, J.P., ADAMS, SPOLZINO and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30816
M/nal
|
2005-02431
Lisa Freihofner, appellant, v Gregory Freihofner, respondent. (Index No. 5173/01)
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
Appeal by Lisa Freihofner from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 9, 2005. By scheduling order dated March 25, 2005, 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 Supreme 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) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal.
The appellant has failed to comply with the scheduling order. The transcripts have not been ordered. 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 March 25, 2005, 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 19, 2005; 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
M30901
S/sl
|
2005-03712
Anthony Gilbert, respondent, v South Service Corp., appellant, et al., defendant. (Index No. 10247/03)
| 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, Queens County, dated March 8, 2005.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until December 7, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30923
L/
HOWARD MILLER, J.P.
BARRY A. COZIER
DAVID S. RITTER
MARK C. DILLON, JJ.
|
2005-00756
Jeffrey Hale, respondent, v S.F. Hotel Company, L.P., d/b/a Summerfield Suites, et al., appellants. (Index No. 5308/01)
| DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION Withdraw Appeal on Stipulation |
Application to withdraw an appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated January 4, 2005.
Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties, dated September 28, 2005, it is
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.
H. MILLER, J.P., COZIER, RITTER and DILLON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30859
K/sl
HOWARD MILLER, J.P.
BARRY A. COZIER
DAVID S. RITTER
MARK C. DILLON, JJ.
|
2005-00756
Jeffrey Hale, respondent, v S.F. Hotel Company, L.P., d/b/a Summerfield Suites, et al., appellants. (Index No. 5308/01)
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
The defendants having appealed to this court from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated January 4, 2005, and having perfected the appeal on May 24, 2005, the respondent having filed a brief on June 27, 2005, and the appellants having filed a reply brief on July 5, 2005, the matter was placed on this court's calendar for October 11, 2005. By letter dated September 27, 2005, counsel for the appellants advised this court that the underlying action had settled on or about August 1, 2005, and that the instant appeal was being withdrawn.
Now, on the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that the parties or their counsel are directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions and/or costs, if any, against the parties to the appeal or their respective counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.2(g) as this court may deem appropriate 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 all parties to the action on or before November 4, 2005.
Section 670.2(g) of the rules of this court provides, in relevant part, that "[i]f a cause or the underlying action or proceeding is wholly or partially settled * * * or if any cause should not be calendared * * * for some other reason, the parties or their counsel shall immediately notify the court," and "[a]ny attorney or party who, without good cause shown, fails to comply with the requirements of this subdivision shall be subject to the imposition of such costs and/or sanctions as the court may direct" (22 NYCRR 670.2[g]).
The Clerk of this court, or his designee, is directed to serve a copy of this order to show cause upon counsel for the respective parties by regular mail.
H. MILLER, J.P., COZIER, RITTER and DILLON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30891
S/sl
BARRY A. COZIER, J.P.
DAVID S. RITTER
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
ROBERT J. LUNN, JJ.
|
2005-01183 Richard Kurtz, respondent, v Michael Mitchell, appellant, et al., defendant. (Index No. 1103/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated December 13, 2004.
Upon the papers filed in support of the application and upon the consent of the respondent, it is
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until October 17, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant'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.
COZIER, J.P., RITTER, SPOLZINO and LUNN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30921
L/
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
BARRY A. COZIER
DAVID S. RITTER
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-07888 Barbara R. Lane, appellant, v Michael Hinds, Blum & Bellino, Inc., et al., respondents. (Index No. 19625/03)
| DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION Withdraw Appeal on Stipulation |
Application to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 31, 2004.
Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties, dated April 22, 2005, it is
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.
SCHMIDT, J.P., COZIER, RITTER and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30852
K/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
BARRY A. COZIER
DAVID S. RITTER
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2004-07888
Barbara R. Lane, appellant, v Michael Hinds, Blum & Bellino, Inc., et al., respondents.
(Index No. 19625/03)
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
The plaintiff, Barbara R. Lane, having appealed to this court from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 31, 2004, and having perfected the appeal on March 3, 2005, and the respondents having filed no brief, the matter was placed on this court's calendar for October 3, 2005. By letter dated September 15, 2005, counsel for the respondents advised this court that the instant appeal was being withdrawn. The stipulation withdrawing the appeal which was appended to the letter is dated April 22, 2005.
Now, on the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that the parties or their counsel are directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions and/or costs, if any, against the parties to the appeal or their respective counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.2(g) as this court may deem appropriate 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 all parties to the action on or before November 4, 2005.
Section 670.2(g) of the rules of this court provides, in relevant part, that "[i]f a cause or the underlying action or proceeding is wholly or partially settled * * * or if any cause should not be calendared * * * for some other reason, the parties or their counsel shall immediately notify the court," and "[a]ny attorney or party who, without good cause shown, fails to comply with the requirements of this subdivision shall be subject to the imposition of such costs and/or sanctions as the court may direct" (22 NYCRR 670.2[g]).
The Clerk of this court, or his designee, is directed to serve a copy of this order to show cause upon counsel for the respective parties by regular mail.
SCHMIDT, J.P., COZIER, RITTER and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30887
Y/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2004-09358 Matthew J. McGuckin, Jr., etc., appellant, v Snapple Distributors, Inc., et al., respondents. (Index No. 17920/03)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 27, 2004, or, in the alternative, to hold the appeal in abeyance.
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 motion is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until November 21, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.
FLORIO, J.P., CRANE, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30900
S/sl
|
2005-04237
Vincenzo Natale, et al., appellants, v City of New York, et al., respondents. (Index No. 25246/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the respondent City of New York pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 7, 2005.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the time of the respondent City of New York to serve and file a brief is enlarged until November 14, 2005, and that 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
M30899
S/sl
|
2005-05711
North Fork Preserve, Inc., et al., respondents, v Myron Kaplan, et al., appellants.
(Index No. 27167/04)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellants 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, Suffolk County, dated June 9, 2005.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before October 21, 2005.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30925
L/
BARRY A. COZIER, J.P.
DAVID S. RITTER
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
ROBERT J. LUNN, JJ.
|
2004-08048 Taylor Ross, etc., et al., respondents, v Edward Mandeville, etc., defendant, New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens, appellant. (Index No. 29077/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION Withdraw Appeal on Stipulation |
Application to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 13, 2004.
Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties, dated September 20, 2005, it is
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.
COZIER, J.P., RITTER, SPOLZINO and LUNN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30847
K/sl
BARRY A. COZIER, J.P.
DAVID S. RITTER
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
ROBERT J. LUNN, JJ.
|
2004-08048
Taylor Ross, etc., et al., respondents, v Edward Mandeville, etc., defendant, New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens, appellant. (Index No. 29077/02)
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
The defendant New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens having appealed to this court from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 13, 2004, and having perfected the appeal on January 4, 2005, the respondents having filed a brief on January 27, 2005, and the appellant having filed a reply brief on February 14, 2005, the matter was placed on this court's calendar for October 3, 2005. By letter dated September 20, 2005, counsel for the appellant advised this court that the instant appeal was being withdrawn because the action had been discontinued against the appellant on May 20, 2005. A stipulation withdrawing the appeal was appended to the letter
Now, on the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that the parties or their counsel are directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions and/or costs, if any, against the parties to the appeal or their respective counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.2(g) as this court may deem appropriate 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 all parties to the action on or before November 4, 2005.
Section 670.2(g) of the rules of this court provides, in relevant part, that "[i]f a cause or the underlying action or proceeding is wholly or partially settled * * * or if any cause should not be calendared * * * for some other reason, the parties or their counsel shall immediately notify the court," and "[a]ny attorney or party who, without good cause shown, fails to comply with the requirements of this subdivision shall be subject to the imposition of such costs and/or sanctions as the court may direct" (22 NYCRR 670.2[g]).
The Clerk of this court, or his designee, is directed to serve a copy of this order to show cause upon counsel for the respective parties by regular mail.
COZIER, J.P., RITTER, SPOLZINO and LUNN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30904
S/sl
|
2005-03601
Michael Santo, appellant, v City of New York, defendant, New York City Transit Authority, respondent. (Index No. 26397/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 10, 2005.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until November 7, 2005, and the respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30883
Y/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2005-05783 Temple Bnai Sholom of Great Neck, etc., appellant, v Village of Great Neck Estates, et al., respondents. (Index No. 13603/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant to stay enforcement of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 25, 2005, 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., CRANE, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30882
Y/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
JOSEPH COVELLO, JJ.
|
2005-08917 Raizy Weiss, respondent, v Angel Rivera, appellant. (Index No. 17251/04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant to stay enforcement of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 13, 2005 pending hearing and determination of an appeal therefrom, and for a preference in the calendaring 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.
SCHMIDT, J.P., SANTUCCI, KRAUSMAN and COVELLO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30821
M/nal
|
2004-08499, 2005-04689 In the Matter of Ray A. (Anonymous), Jr. St. Vincent's Services, petitioner-respondent; Marilyn R. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent; Steven Banks, etc., nonparty-appellant. In the Matter of Marilyn Roslyn C. (Anonymous). St. Vincent's Services, petitioner-respondent; Marilyn R. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent; Steven Banks, etc., nonparty-appellant. (Docket Nos. B-1853/01, B-1854/01)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeals by the law guardian from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, dated April 18, 2005, and August 26, 2004, respectively. The appellant's brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this court on September 30, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the Rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it is
ORDERED that the respondents' respective briefs shall be served and filed within 30 days of the date of this order.
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
M30827
M/nal
|
2005-06013 In the Matter of Anthony Carnegie, appellant, v Sela Carnegie, respondent. (Docket No. U-00914-81)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Anthony Carnegie from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated May 2, 2005. The appellant's brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this court on September 29, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the Rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it is
ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order, the briefs of the respondent(s) and the Law Guardian, if any, in the above-entitled appeal, shall be served and filed.
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
M30823
M/nal
|
2004-10296 In the Matter of Justina Rose D. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Charlotte D. (Anonymous), et al., appellants. (Docket Nos. B-3636-04, B-3638-04)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Separate appeals by Charlotte D. and Howard D. from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated November 17, 2004. The brief of appellant Charlotte D. was served and filed on September 16, 2005, and the brief of the appellant Howard D. was served and filed on September 30, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the Rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it is
ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order, the briefs of the respondent(s) and the Law Guardian, if any, in the above-entitled appeal, shall be served and filed.
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
M30820
M/nal
|
2005-05322
In the Matter of Kevin C. D. (Anonymous). Nassau County Department of Social Services, petitioner; Kevin A. O. (Anonymous), appellant. (Docket No. N-00041-01)
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
Appeal by Kevin A. O. from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated May 20, 2005. By scheduling order dated June 9, 2005, 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) 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 June 9, 2005, 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 19, 2005; 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
M30815
M/nal
|
2005-04770
In the Matter of Abraham Friedman, appellant, v Lilly Friedman, respondent. (Docket Nos. V-5251-94, V-5009-97, V-17905-99)
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
Appeal by Abraham Friedman from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated April 14, 2005. By scheduling order dated August 9, 2005, 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) 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 August 9, 2005, 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 19, 2005; 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
M30814
M/nal
|
2005-01773 In the Matter of Anna Marie G. (Anonymous), a/k/a Anna Marie C. (Anonymous). Jewish Child Care Association of New York, respondent; Abduel G. (Anonymous), a/k/a Abdul G. (Anonymous), et al., appellants. (Docket No. B-10322/01)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Separate appeals by Abduel G., a/k/a Abdul G. and Margarita C. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated January 24, 2005. The original papers were filed with this court on July 22, 2005, and the brief of the appellant Margarita C. was served and filed on October 3, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it is
ORDERED that the time of the appellant Abduel G., a/k/a Abdul G. to serve and file his brief on the appeal is enlarged until November 7, 2005.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30817
M/nal
|
2004-11330, 2004-11331, 2004-11332, 2004-11334 In the Matter of Q. L. H. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; C.-M. W. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1)
In the Matter of Y.-L. R. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; C.-M. W. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) (Docket Nos. N-18613-02, N-18614-02)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeals by C.-M. W. from four orders of the Family Court, Kings County, one dated August 20, 2004, and three dated October 27, 2004, respectively. The appellant's brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this court on October 3, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the Rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it is
ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order, the briefs of the respondent(s) and the Law Guardian, if any, in the above-entitled appeals, shall be served and filed.
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
M30808
M/nal
|
2005-04700 In the Matter of Yves J.-J. (Anonymous), appellant. (Docket No. D-11572-03)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Yves J.-J. from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, entered April 28 , 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it is
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 670.4[a][2]) and by serving and filing the appellant's brief on the appeal is enlarged until November 1, 2005.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30822
M/nal
|
2005-06766
In the Matter of Frederick Keitel III, appellant, v Diane De La Bagassiere, respondent. (Docket No. V-10822-02)
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
Appeal by Frederick Keitel III from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated June 22, 2005. By scheduling order dated August 8, 2005, 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) 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 August 8, 2005, 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 19, 2005; 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
M30845
K/nal
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
ANITA R. FLORIO
HOWARD MILLER
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT
THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
|
2004-04551
In the Matter of Warren R. Kraft, admitted as Warren Randolph Kraft, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, petitioner; Warren R. Kraft, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2205706)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts for an order: 1) suspending the respondent from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest in that he has failed to submit written answers to eight complaints of professional misconduct and failed to timely answer another five complaints of professional misconduct pending before the Grievance Committee; 2) authorizing it to serve a second supplemental petition dated June 23, 2005, in the disciplinary proceeding which was authorized by the court on November 18, 2004; and 3) directing the respondent to submit an answer to the supplemental petition. By decision and order on motion of this court dated November 18, 2004, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent and the issues raised were referred to the Honorable James A. Gowan, as Special Referee to hear and report. By further decision and order on motion of the court dated March 15, 2005, that branch of the Grievance Committee's motion which sought the respondent's immediate suspension was denied but the Grievance Committee was authorized to supplement the previously authorized petition with an additional charge, which was referred to Special Referee Gowan, along with the charges previously referred to him. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on July 27, 1988, under the name Warren Randolph Kraft.
Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and the papers submitted in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), the respondent Warren R. Kraft, admitted as Warren Randolph Kraft, is immediately suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pending further order of this court; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent shall promptly comply with this court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension and until further order of this court, the respondent, Warren R. Kraft, admitted as Warren Randolph Kraft, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law of its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts is hereby authorized to serve the supplemental petition dated June 23, 2005, in the disciplinary proceeding which was authorized by the court on November 18, 2004; and it is further,
ORDERED that Diana Maxfield Kearse, Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Renaissance Plaza, 335 Adams Street, Suite 2400, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201-3745, is hereby appointed as attorney for the petitioner in such proceeding; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, the respondent shall serve an answer upon the petitioner and the Special Referee, and shall file the original answer in the office of the Clerk of this court; and it is further,
ORDERED that the issues raised, along with the charges previously referred to him, are referred to the Honorable James A. Gowan, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, 90 Sequams Lane East, West Islip, N.Y. 11795, as Special Referee to hear and report; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Special Referee is directed to complete and submit his report within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,
ORDERED that if the respondent, Warren R. Kraft, admitted as Warren Randolph Kraft, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10(f).
We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon his failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee.
In addition to the complaints encompassed in the pending disciplinary proceeding, the Grievance Committee is currently investigating 14 additional complaints of professional misconduct against the respondent which allege, inter alia, neglect of legal matters and failing to maintain adequate communication with clients. On March 31, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter informing him that it had received a complaint from Abraham Gray and Autherine Gray and requesting his answer within 10 days. The letter was sent to the respondent in care of his attorney, Jerome Karp. The respondent neither answered nor requested additional time in which to do so. By letters dated April 25, 2005, and June 3, 2005, the Grievance Committee again requested the respondent's answer to the Gray complaint. He still failed to respond.
On April 18, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, in care of Mr. Karp, informing him that he was the subject of a complaint by Louis D. Fiorillo and requesting his response within 10 days. The Fiorillo complaint alleged that two checks from the respondent's business account, payable to the Kings County Clerk, were returned for insufficient funds. The respondent failed to correct the problem and has a history of returned checks with the Clerk's office. The respondent neither answered nor requested an extension of time in which to respond to the complaint.
On June 6, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a second letter regarding his failure to answer the Fiorillo complaint and directed him to respond within 10 days. The respondent again failed to reply.
On May 3, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, in care of Mr. Karp, informing him that he was the subject of a complaint from Beverly Rankin and requesting his response within 10 days. The respondent neither answered that complaint nor requested an extension of time in which to do so. On June 3, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter regarding his failure to answer the Rankin complaint and directing him to answer within 10 days. The respondent still failed to reply.
On May 13, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, in care of Mr. Karp, informing him that he was the subject of a complaint by Theodore Smith and requesting his answer within 10 days. The respondent neither submitted an answer nor requested additional time in which to do so.
On June 3, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent letters, in care of Mr. Karp, informing him that he was the subject of complaints by Martin Campbell and Kusay Rabadi and requesting his response within 10 days. The respondent neither submitted answers nor requested additional time in which to do so.
On June 7, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, in care of Mr. Karp, informing him that he was the subject of a complaint by Sandra Baichu and requesting his answer within 10 days. The respondent neither submitted an answer nor requested additional time in which to do so.
The respondent has also failed to timely submit answers or supplemental answers to five additional complaints.
On December 27, 2004, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, in care of Mr. Karp, informing him that he was the subject of a complaint by Ana Tishma and requesting his answer within 10 days. The respondent neither submitted an answer nor requested additional time in which to do so. On February 17, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a second letter, via certified and regular mail, regarding his failure to answer the Tishman complaint, requested his answer within 10 days, and warned of the possibility of suspension for failure to cooperate. The respondent still failed to reply. By letter dated April 15, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a third letter with respect to the Tishma complaint and advised him that a motion for his interim suspension would ensue unless his answer was received within 10 days. The respondent's answer to the Tishma complaint was finally received on May 26, 2005.
On January 28, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, in care of Mr. Karp, informing him that he was the subject of a complaint by Cecilia Norbert and requesting his answer within 10 days. The respondent neither submitted an answer nor requested additional time in which to do so. On May 3, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a second letter regarding his failure to answer the Norbert complaint and directed him to answer within 10 days or risk a motion for his immediate suspension. The respondent's answer to the Norbert complaint was finally received on May 26, 2005.
On March 31, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, in care of Mr. Karp, informing him that he was the subject of a complaint by Maria Garcia and requesting his answer within 10 days. The respondent neither submitted an answer nor requested additional time in which to do so. On April 25, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a second letter regarding his failure to answer the Garcia complaint and directing him to answer within 10 days. The respondent's answer was finally received on May 26, 2005.
On March 31, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, in care of Mr. Karp, informing him that he was the subject of a complaint by Sally Montemarano and requesting his answer within 10 days. The respondent neither submitted an answer nor requested additional time in which to do so. On April 25, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a second letter regarding his failure to answer the Montemarano complaint and directing him to answer within 10days. The respondent's answer was finally received on May 26, 2005.
On November 26, 2004, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, in care of Mr. Karp, informing him that he was the subject of a complaint by Maria G. Walton. The respondent's answer was received on December 10, 2004. On January 7, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a second letter directing him to provide a supplemental answer within 10 days. The respondent neither submitted a supplemental answer nor requested additional time in which to do so. On April 29 and May 2, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent additional letters to the respondent again requesting that he provide a supplemental answer within 10 days. The respondent still failed to comply.
In addition, the Grievance Committee recently notified the respondent, by letter addressed to Mr. Karp, about an additional complaint of professional misconduct. The Grievance Committee submits that the respondent continues in his failure to cooperate with its numerous investigations even under the threat of his suspension from the practice of law. It should not be required to make repeated motions to the court in order to secure the respondent's cooperation during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding on charges of neglect and failure to cooperate.
In conclusion, the Grievance Committee submits that the respondent's continued practice of law poses a threat to the public welfare. He has continued to flagrantly ignore its efforts to investigate the torrent of complaints against him that continue to pour in.
In his affidavit in opposition, the respondent submits that the difficulties he has encountered in the practice of law result from serious family and management problems which he has begun to address. He maintains that he has never acted with a venal purpose and that his continued practice of law does not pose a threat to the public.
He realizes that his practice has expanded beyond his present abilities to represent clients adequately and has begun restricting his practice to personal injury matters. The respondent has arranged for other attorneys to handle his employment discrimination and immigration files with the understanding that each client has the right to select his or her counsel. The respondent avers that he has improved his communication with clients to keep them aware of the status of their matters.
Per the respondent, no complaint currently remains unanswered.
The respondent's pattern of conduct has precipitated an intense effort on the part of the Grievance Committee to secure his cooperation and has engendered a great degree of concern for his clients. Although the respondent has finally submitted answers to the complaints which form the basis of the second supplemental petition, he once again did so only when threatened with an interim suspension. It is disturbing to note that he has continued to ignore the plethora of additional complaints which have arisen subsequent to the authorization of a disciplinary proceeding and the denial of the Grievance Committee's initial motion for his interim suspension. Notwithstanding the remedial measures which the respondent has recently undertaken, there is a sufficient showing that the respondent constitutes an immediate threat to the public interest by virtue of his habitual failure to timely cooperate with the Grievance Committee's legitimate investigation until faced with the threat of a motion for his immediate suspension. Under the totality of circumstances, that branch of the Grievance Committee's motion which seeks the respondent's interim suspension for failure to cooperate is granted and the parties are directed to expeditiously proceed with the ongoing disciplinary proceeding before Special Referee Gowan. The remaining branch of the motion which seeks leave to serve the supplemental petition is granted but any additional complaints against this respondent should be the subject of a separate disciplinary proceeding to avoid any further delays in bringing this matter to its conclusion.
PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30826
M/nal
|
2005-03760 In the Matter of Daniel Luizzi, appellant, v Susan Collins, respondent. (Docket Nos. V-16526-04, V-16527-04, V-16528-04)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Daniel Luizzi from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated March 31, 2005. The appellant's brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this court on September 29, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the Rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it is
ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order, the briefs of the respondent(s) and the Law Guardian, if any, in the above-entitled appeal, shall be served and filed.
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
M30806
M/nal
|
2005-05010 In the Matter of Chantal M. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Leonel M. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Gleacy M. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Leonel M. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Glendyann M. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Leonel M. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 3) (Docket Nos. N-15769-03, N-15770-03, N-15771-03)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Leonel M. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 6, 2005. By decision and order on motion of this court dated October 3, 2005, the following attorney was assigned as counsel on the appeal:
Edward E. Caesar, Esq.
26 Court Street - Suite 2401
Brooklyn, New York 11201-4404
(718) 246-2712
Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceedings shall be perfected either within 60 days after the receipt by the assigned counsel of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the assigned counsel 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 assigned counsel 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 any Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; 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 the order of this court dated October 3, 2005, has been served upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken, the date thereof, and the date by which the transcripts are 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
M30809
M/nal
|
2005-02517 In the Matter of Shaquan N. M. (Anonymous), respondent. Orange County Attorney, appellant. (Docket No. D-214-05)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by the Orange County Attorney from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, dated February 25, 2005. The appellant's brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this court on October 4, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the Rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it is
ORDERED that the respondent's brief shall be served and filed within 30 days of the date of this order.
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
M30824
M/nal
|
2004-05044, 2004-08908, 2005-00200 In the Matter of Camille N. Rochester, respondent, v Fred B. Rochester, appellant. (Docket No. O-5226-04)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeals by Fred B. Rochester from three orders of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated May 5, 2004, September 21, 2004, and January 5, 2005, respectively. The appellant's principal brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this court on June 29, 2005, and the appellant's pro se supplemental brief was served and filed on September 30, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the Rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it is
ORDERED that the respondent's brief shall be served and filed within 30 days of the date of this order.
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
M30861
M/nal
|
2005-03059
In the Matter of Andrei S. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, petitioner-respondent; Rafael S. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Docket No. N-19664/04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated March 8, 2005.
Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding is marked withdrawn.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30894
S/sl
BARRY A. COZIER, J.P.
DAVID S. RITTER
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
ROBERT J. LUNN, JJ.
|
2004-04757
In the Matter of Timothy Shockome, respondent, v Yevgenia Shockome, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Yevgenia Shockome, appellant, v Timothy Shockome, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) (Docket Nos. V-05156-02, V-5157-02, V-5620-02, V-5621-02, O-5362-02)
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE |
Appeal by Yevgenia Shockome from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County, dated May 10, 2004.
Now, on the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that the appellant is directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the above-captioned appeal on the ground that it has been rendered academic by an order of the same court dated August 24, 2005, by filing an affirmation or affidavit on that issue with the Clerk of this court on or before October 28, 2005; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Clerk of this court, or his designee, shall serve a copy of this order to show cause on the attorneys for the parties by regular mail.
COZIER, J.P., RITTER, SPOLZINO and LUNN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30818
M/nal
|
2004-09334, 2004-09336, 2004-09339 In the Matter of Jerome Marcel T. (Anonymous), Jr. Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; Demetria W. (Anonymous), appellant. In the Matter of James Devon P. (Anonymous), Jr. Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; Demetria W. (Anonymous), appellant. In the Matter of Shanequa Romelle E. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, respondent; Demetria W. (Anonymous), appellant. (Docket Nos. B-6085-03, B-6081-03, B-6087-03)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeals by Demetria W. from three orders of the Family Court, Westchester County, all dated September 7, 2004. The appellant's brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this court on October 3, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the Rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it is
ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order, the briefs of the respondent(s) and the Law Guardian, if any, in the above-entitled appeals, shall be served and filed.
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
M30881
Y/sl
BARRY A. COZIER, J.P.
DAVID S. RITTER
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
ROBERT J. LUNN, JJ.
|
2005-02952 In the Matter of Victor V. (Anonymous), appellant. (Docket No. D-35142-03)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated January 3, 2005, to enlarge the record on appeal to include three newspaper articles.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
COZIER, J.P., RITTER, SPOLZINO and LUNN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30911
F/
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2005-05325 The People, etc., respondent, v Dean Bennett, appellant. (Ind. No. 2834/04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by Howard A. Schwartz, Esq., to be substituted as retained counsel, in place of assigned counsel, to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 25, 2005, and to continue the appellant's poor person status on the appeal. The appellant's motion to dispense with printing and for the assignment of counsel was granted on September 8, 2005, and the following named attorney was assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:
The Legal Aid Society
199 Water Street - 5th Floor
New York, New York 10038
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 assigned counsel is directed to turn over all papers in the action to retained counsel:
Howard A. Schwartz, Esq.
50 Court Street - Suite 506
Brooklyn, New York 11201
and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant's poor person status is continued; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged. Retained counsel shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with this court's rules (22 NYCRR 670.1, et seq.) and written directions.
FLORIO, J.P., CRANE, MASTRO, and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Retained Attorney:
Howard A. Schwartz, Esq.
50 Court Street - Suite 506
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30895
S/sl
BARRY A. COZIER, J.P.
DAVID S. RITTER
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
ROBERT J. LUNN, JJ.
|
2005-03923 The People, etc., respondent, v John Donovan, appellant. (Ind. No. 0279/04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered April 26, 2004. By order to show cause dated August 19, 2005, the appellant was directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the notice of appeal is untimely (see CPL 460.10[1][a], 460.30), and the appellant has not sought leave to file a late notice of appeal.
Upon the papers filed in response to the order to show cause, it is
ORDERED that the appellant's notice of appeal filed on or about April 25, 2005, is deemed to be an application for leave to file a late notice of appeal and the application is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order to show cause is denied.
COZIER, J.P., RITTER, SPOLZINO and LUNN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30897
S/sl
BARRY A. COZIER, J.P.
SONDRA MILLER
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2003-04114 The People, etc., respondent, v Stanley Griffin, appellant. (Ind. No. 02-244)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
On the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that so much of the decision and order on motion of this court dated June 21, 2005, in the above-entitled appeal, as directed a reconstruction hearing with respect to certain proceedings which occurred before the County Court, Orange County, on March 4, 2003, is recalled and vacated, as the minutes in question have been located.
COZIER, J.P., S. MILLER, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30892
S/sl
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
ANITA R. FLORIO
HOWARD MILLER
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT
THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
|
2003-10889 The People, etc., respondent, v Melvin Kross, appellant. (Ind. No. 1284/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
On the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that the decision and order on motion of this court, dated April 15, 2005, which granted the appellant's motion for leave to serve and file a supplemental pro se brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 3, 2003, is recalled and vacated; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant's motion for leave to file a supplemental pro se brief is denied.
The appellant has failed to file a supplemental pro se brief although afforded sufficient opportunity to do so.
PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30893
S/sl
BARRY A. COZIER, J.P.
DAVID S. RITTER
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
ROBERT J. LUNN, JJ.
|
2004-10380 The People, etc., respondent, v Christino Maarte, appellant. (Ind. No. 1485/04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the attorney assigned to represent the appellant on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 25, 2004, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant has been deported. By order to show cause dated May 18, 2005, the appellant was directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant is no longer available to obey the mandate of this court (see People v Hutchings, 40 NY2d 836; People v Smith, 115 AD2d 625; People v Davis, 87 AD2d 578), and the motion by assigned counsel was held in abeyance in the interim.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, and no papers having been filed in response to the order to show cause, it is
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion by the appellant's assigned counsel is denied as academic.
COZIER, J.P., RITTER, SPOLZINO and LUNN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30885
E/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2003-09286 The People, etc., respondent, v Bruce Monroe, appellant.
(Ind. No. 1967/02)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to file exhibits to his supplemental brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, rendered October 14, 2003.
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., CRANE, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30903
S/sl
|
2004-07401
The People, etc., respondent, v Valdin Patten, appellant. (Ind. No. 2935/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered July 22, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged; counsel shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with this court's rules (see 22 NYCRR 670.1, et seq.) and written directions.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30889
S/sl
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
ANITA R. FLORIO
HOWARD MILLER
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT
THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
|
2005-05978
The People, etc., respondent, v Arthur Phillip, appellant. (Ind. No. 1632/04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION Motion for Poor Person Relief and to Assign Counsel Appeal from Judgment |
On the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that its decision and order on motion dated September 6, 2005, in the above-entitled case is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order on motion is substituted therefor:
Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered May 31, 2005, as a poor person, and for leave to proceed pro se.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED 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 appellant's and the respondent's briefs; the parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other; and it is further,
ORDERED that the stenographer of the trial court is directed promptly to make, certify, and file two transcripts of the proceedings of any pretrial hearings, of the plea of guilty or of the trial, and of the imposition of sentence in this action, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (see 22 NYCRR 671.9); and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event that the case was tried to a conclusion before a jury, the stenographer shall also make, certify, and file two transcripts of the minutes of proceedings during jury selection; and it is further,
ORDERED that the clerk of the trial court shall furnish the certified transcripts of the proceedings, if any, to the clerk of this court, and the clerk of this court shall deliver those minutes to the person in charge of the institution wherein the appellant is incarcerated for examination by the appellant; the transcript shall be returned to this court when the appellant files a brief or informs this court that no brief will be filed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant shall file nine copies of the brief and serve one copy on the District Attorney; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event the stenographer has already prepared a copy of any of the minutes for a codefendant, then the clerk of the trial court is directed to reproduce a copy thereof for transmission to this court ; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event the appellant elects to perfect the appeal pro se, he shall file along with his brief, a properly executed waiver of his right to appellate counsel, which waiver shall read as follows:
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPELLATE COUNSEL
I have been advised that (1) I have the right to be represented by an attorney in prosecuting my appeal, and (2) if I cannot afford to retain counsel, one will be assigned to represent me at State expense. Knowing these rights I have voluntarily elected to waive them and to represent myself on the appeal. I have not been forced to waive my rights and I believe myself to be of sufficient intelligence and ability to properly protect my own interests without the assistance of a lawyer to, among other things, write an appellate brief.
Arthur Phillip
State of )
) ss.
County of )
On the day of in the year before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Arthur Phillip, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual executed the instrument.
Notary Public
and it is further,
ORDERED that the Clerk of this court, or his designee, is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the Clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.
PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, H. MILLER, SCHMIDT, and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellant's address:
96 A 4979
Downstate Corr. Fac.
Box F
Fishkill, New York 12524
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30874
R/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
1997-04437 The People, etc., respondent, v Renaldo Simmons, appellant. (Ind. No. 13873/96)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 7, 1997, to strike the appellant's pro se supplemental brief on the ground that the supplemental brief raises issues which are not properly before this court.
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 the appellant's pro se supplemental brief which was filed with the clerk of this court on August 29, 2005, is stricken; and it is further,
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, so much of its decision and order on motion dated July 19, 2005, as sua sponte granted the appellant leave to serve and file a supplemental pro se brief is recalled and vacated.
FLORIO, J.P., CRANE, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30898
S/sl
|
2001-02385
The People, etc., respondent, v Christopher Webb, appellant.
(Ind. No. 5157/99)
| 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 a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 8, 2001.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before October 14, 2005.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M30873
R/sl
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
STEPHEN G. CRANE
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2004-04998 The People, etc., respondent, DECISION & ORDER v Nicholas Williams, appellant. (Ind. No. 03-00685)
| ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant pro se for an enlargement of time to serve and file a supplemental brief on an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered April 27, 2004, and to be provided with certain documents.
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 be provided with certain documents is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for an enlargement of time to serve and file a supplemental brief is granted, and the appellant's supplemental brief shall be served and filed on or before December 9, 2005; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant shall file nine copies of the supplemental brief and serve one copy on the District Attorney.
FLORIO, J.P., CRANE, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court