SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MOTION DECISIONS FOR NOVEMBER 25, 2003

TITLECase Number
Alami v Volkswagen of Ame2003-01038
Amsellem v Amsellem2003-08843
Certified Electrical Cont2003-02584 + 1
Dinerman v Dinerman2003-09750
Falgoust v Falgoust2003-09782
Frederick v Fried2002-03886 + 2
Gomez v Needham Capital G2003-00164
Hayes v County Bank2003-07270
Kaiser v Delaney2003-04810
Korea Exchange Bank v A.A2003-04015
Kyriazis v Barry, Bette &2003-04643
Manhattanville College v2003-00172 + 4
Nasca v Gertel2003-01356
O'Donnell v O'Donnell2003-08216
Pinnacle Credit Services,2003-09099
Rizzo, a/k/a DMR Reporting2003-09061
Rudman v Rudman2003-09602
Sanford Avenue Realty Co.2003-09294
Mtr of A. (Anonymous), Da2003-07711
Mtr of Barsky v Zona2003-07787
Mtr of Brennan v Johnson2003-05136
Mtr of Cambridge v Cambri2003-04594
Mtr of Cambridge v Cambri2003-04594
Mtr of Civic Association2003-03594
Mtr of Dismissal Causes
Mtr of Freels v Freels2003-06616
Mtr of Gaulman v Williams2003-06667
Mtr of J. (Anonymous), Pa2003-02286 + 5
Mtr of Lowenthal, An Atto2003-04820
Mtr of Maddox v Grievance1991-01728
Mtr of Malfetano v Parker2002-06741 + 1
Mtr of Medney v Medney2003-07782
Mtr of Meehan v County of2003-06223
Mtr of Mellone v Mellone2003-10001
Mtr of N. (Anonymous), Tr2003-07167
Mtr of Newman, Howard P.2003-04038
Mtr of Pollard; Grievance2000-03849
Mtr of Pollock v Vega2003-09974
Mtr of Reynolds, Kent K.2003-03344
Mtr of S. (Anonymous), Da2002-11387
Mtr of S. (Anonymous), Ra2003-04978
Mtr of S. (Anonymous), Sa2002-11112
Mtr of Sealy; Grievance C1993-06434
Mtr of Shapiro; Grievance2001-03562
Mtr of Shinohara, Gabriel2003-02987
Mtr of V. (Anonymous), Ni2002-05308
Mtr of Waine, Robert Jay2003-03052
Peo v Alvarenga, Manuel2002-04229
Peo v James, Tyrone2003-03235
Peo v Knowlden, Von, a/k/a2003-06901
Peo v Scott, Malik2003-07949
Peo v Soto, Victor2003-09202 + 1
Peo v Villante, Dean2003-03770
Peo v Walker, Richard2003-05502
Peo v Zelaya, Amilcar2002-06610







Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4899

A/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

HOWARD MILLER

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-01038

Shauna Alami, etc., appellant-respondent,

v Volkswagen of America, Inc., respondent-

appellant.

(Index No. 20093/96)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the respondent-appellant, inter alia, to enlarge the time to perfect a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 30, 2002.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to timely perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent-appellant's time to perfect the cross appeal is enlarged until December 10, 2003, and the record or appendix and the respondent-appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk



Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4955

C/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

HOWARD MILLER

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-08843

Sofia Amsellem, respondent, v

Jacques Amsellem, appellant.

(Index No. 200692/01)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant to stay stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 14, 2003, pending the 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.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4902

C/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

HOWARD MILLER

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-02584, 2003-09252

Certified Electrical Contracting Corp.,

appellant-respondent, v City of New York

(Department of Transportation), respondent-

appellant.

(Index No. 8376/97)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the respondent-appellant to enlarge the time to perfect appeals and cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 2, 2003, and an order of the same court dated September 18, 2003, and to consolidate the appeals.

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

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to consolidate the appeals is denied as unnecessary as the appeals may be consolidated as of right (see 22 NYCRR 670.7[c][1]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal from the order dated September 18, 2003, is denied as premature; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal from the order dated January 2, 2003, is granted; the appellant-respondent's time to perfect that appeal is enlarged until January 13, 2004, and the joint record or appendix on the appeals and the appellant-respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent-appellant shall serve and file its answering brief, including its points of argument on the cross appeals, in accordance with the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]).

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4651

M/mv

2003-09750

Richard Dinerman, appellant,

v Karen Dinerman, respondent.

(Index No. 27622/98)

SCHEDULING ORDER

Appeal by Richard Dinerman from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 15, 2003. 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 shall not be dismissed.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk

The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4933

Y/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

HOWARD MILLER

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-09782

Gregory Falgoust, respondent, v

Andrea Falgoust, appellant.

(Index No. 200378/02)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant, inter alia, to stay the sale of the marital residence pending the hearing and determination of an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 27, 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.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4949

O/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

HOWARD MILLER

BARRY A. COZIER

REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.

2002-03886, 2002-05379, 2002-05465

Edwin Frederick, respondent, v Josef Fried, appellant,

et al., defendant.

(Action No. 1)

(Index No. 28711/86)

Edwin Frederick, etc., et al., respondents, v

Josef Fried, appellant.

(Action No. 2)

(Index No. 4831/93)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant for leave to reargue appeals from a judgment and two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, all dated March 15, 2002, which were determined by decision and order of this court dated September 22, 2003, or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this court.

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

ORDERED that the motion is denied, with $100 costs.

SMITH, J.P., H. MILLER, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk



Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4891

O/sl

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P.

THOMAS A. ADAMS

STEPHEN G. CRANE

BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.

2003-00164

Ana Maria Gomez, appellant, v

Needham Capital Group, Inc., et al.,

respondents.

(Index No. 19829/01)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 26, 2002, to strike portions of the respondents' brief on the ground that it refers to matter dehors the record, and for costs on the motion.

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

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to strike portions of the respondents' brief is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that on or before December 10, 2003, the respondents shall either delete or remove from the copies of their brief on file with this court the following:

(1) From page 2 - Point II,

(2) From page 3 - "Questions Presented" No. 2,

(3) All of page 5 and page 6 up to the words "PROCEDURAL HISTORY", and

(4) Page 13 beginning with the words "Point II" through the end of Page 15;

or serve and file an amended brief that does not contain the stricken material; and it is further,

ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the appellant's time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until December 22, 2003; and it is further,

ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.

SANTUCCI, J.P., ADAMS, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4957

O/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

GLORIA GOLDSTEIN

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-07270

Patricia Hayes, etc., appellant, v

County Bank, respondent.

(Index No. 2281/00)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by Susan Verbonitz, an attorney in good standing in the State of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey, to be admitted pro hac vice to represent the respondent on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 4, 2003.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted.

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and TOWNES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4931

M/sl

2003-04810

Thomas Kaiser, et al., appellants,

v Bryan Delaney, et al., defendants,

South Bay Water Taxi, et al., respondents.

(Index No. 20353/97)

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, Suffolk County, dated February 21, 2003.

ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellants' time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 9, 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




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4929

M/sl

2003-04015

Korea Exchange Bank, respondent,

v A.A. Trading Co., Ltd., defendant,

Hyoeung Roh, appellant; Michael S. Kimm,

nonparty-appellant.

(Index No. 2845/02)

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, Queens County, dated February 28, 2003.

ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until December 12, 2003, and the respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4924

M/sl

2003-04643

David Kyriazis, et al., respondents,

v Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc., et al.,

defendants, Barr & Barr, Inc., appellant.

(Index No. 36/00)

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, Dutchess County, dated April 14, 2003.

ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 26, 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




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4917

M/sl

2003-00172, 2003-00373, 2003-00375,

2003-00379, 2003-00384

Manhattanville College, respondent,

v James John Romeo Consulting Engineer,

P.C., et al., defendants, Aerco International,

Inc., et al., appellants.

(Appeal No. 1)

Manhattanville College, respondent,

v James John Romeo Consulting Engineer,

P.C., et al., appellants, et al., defendants.

(Appeals No. 2, 3, and 4)

Manhattanville College, respondent,

v James John Romeo Consulting Engineer,

P.C., appellant, et al., defendants.

(Appeal No. 5)

(Index No. 1327/00)

ORDER ON APPLICATION

Application by the appellant James John Romeo Consulting Engineer, P.C. pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on appeals from five orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, all dated December 3, 2002.

ORDERED that the application is granted and the time of the appellant James John Romeo Consulting Engineer, P.C., to serve and file its reply brief is enlarged until December 5, 2003.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk



Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4890

C/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

HOWARD MILLER

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-01356

Dean Nasca, et al., appellants, v

Michael Gertel, et al., respondents.

(Index No. 17978/02)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellants to strike the respondents' brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated December 19, 2002, on the ground, inter alia, that it refers to matter dehors the record, and to impose a sanction upon the respondents' attorneys, or, to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief in the event the respondents' brief is not stricken.

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 enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief is granted; the appellants' time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until December 16, 2003; and it is further,

ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk



Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4936

O/sl

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P.

THOMAS A. ADAMS

STEPHEN G. CRANE

BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.

2003-08216

Neil O'Donnell, respondent, v

Cynthia O'Donnell, appellant.

(Index No. 8158/98)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to prosecute an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated August 12, 2003, as a poor person, and for the assignment of counsel.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

ORDERED that the motion is denied as academic.

SANTUCCI, J.P., ADAMS, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk



Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4940

O/sl

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.

ANITA R. FLORIO

NANCY E. SMITH

HOWARD MILLER, JJ.

2003-09099

Pinnacle Credit Services, Inc., etc., plaintiff,

v Francisco Belizario, defendant.

(Index No. 1096/02)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the defendant for leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated July 18, 2003, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, Kings County, entered June 10, 2002.

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

ORDERED that the motion is denied.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk



Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4956

O/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

GLORIA GOLDSTEIN

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-09061

Debra Rizzo, a/k/a DMR Reporting, plaintiff,

v Michael L. Pfeifer, defendant.

(Index No. 56140/01)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the defendant for leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated June 5, 2003, which modified an order of the Civil Court, Kings County, entered September 25, 2002.

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

ORDERED that the motion is denied.

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and TOWNES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4971

T/sl

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.

SONDRA MILLER

THOMAS A. ADAMS

BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.

2003-09602

Leslie Rudman, respondent, v

Michael Rudman, appellant.

(Index No. 200789/03)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant to stay enforcement of stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 29, 2003, 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.

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4897

C/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

HOWARD MILLER

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-09294

Sanford Avenue Realty Co., LLC, petitioner,

v Rafael Reynoso, respondent.

(Index No. 75216/99)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Motion for Leave to Appeal to the
Appellate Division

Motion by Rafael Reynoso for leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated July 7, 2003, which reversed an order of the Civil Court, Queens County, entered June 3, 2002.

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 granted.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4570

M/mv

2003-07711

In the Matter of Damien A. (Anonymous).

Putnam County Department of Social Services,

respondent; Susan A. (Anonymous), appellant.

(Proceeding No. 1)

(Docket No. N-1673-01)

In the Matter of Kirk A. (Anonymous).

Putnam County Department of Social Services,

respondent; Susan A. (Anonymous), appellant.

(Proceeding No. 2)

(Docket No. N-1674-01)

In the Matter of Gabriel A. (Anonymous).

Putnam County Department of Social Services,

respondent; Susan A. (Anonymous), appellant.

(Proceeding No. 3)

(Docket No. N-1675-01)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Appeal by Susan A. from an order of the Family Court, Putnam County, dated July18, 2003. By scheduling order dated September 18, 2003, the appellant was directed to file one of the following in the office of the Clerk of the court, within 30 days after the date of the scheduling order:

(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there were no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeal; or

(2) if there were such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript was received, and indicating the date that it was received; or

(3) if the transcript was not received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it was ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript was expected; or

(4) if the appellant was indigent and could not afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeal, a motion in this court for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101; or

(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal.

The appellant has failed to comply with the scheduling order. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(5) of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][5]), it is

ORDERED that the parties or their attorneys are directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled proceedings for failure to comply with the scheduling order dated September 18, 2003, by each filing an affirmation or affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this court and serving one copy of the same on each other on or before December 19, 2003; 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




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4662

M/mv

2003-07787

In the Matter of Beth Barsky, respondent,

v J. Douglas Zona, appellant.

(Docket Nos. V-5741-02, V-5742-02,

V-5743-02, V-5744-02)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Appeal by J. Douglas Zona from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated August 4, 2003. By scheduling order dated September 18, 2003, 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 proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or

(2) if there were such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript was received, and indicating the date that it was received; or

(3) if the transcript was not received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it was ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript was expected; or

(4) if the appellant was indigent and could not afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeal, a motion in this court for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101; or

(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal.

The appellant has failed to comply with the scheduling order. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(5) of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][5]), it is

ORDERED that the parties or their attorneys are directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding for failure to comply with the scheduling order dated September 18, 2003, by each filing an affirmation or affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this court and serving one copy of the same on each other on or before December 19, 2003; 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




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4572

M/mv

2003-05136

In the Matter of Constance Brennan, petitioner-

respondent, v Glen Johnson, respondent-

respondent; Legal Aid Society of Suffolk

County, nonparty-appellant.

(Docket Nos. V-528-02, V-529-02)

SCHEDULING ORDER

Appeal by Legal Aid Society of Suffolk County, Law Guardian for the children, from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated June 10, 2003. The appellant's brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this court on September 4, 2003. Pursuant to § 670.4(d)(3) of the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[d][3]), it is

ORDERED that the scheduling order of this court dated September 12, 2003, in the above-entitled proceeding is amended to provide that the time of the respondent(s) and the law guardian, if any, to serve and file briefs in the above-entitled appeal is enlarged until December 19, 2003.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4966

Y/sl

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.

SONDRA MILLER

THOMAS A. ADAMS

BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.

2003-04594

In the Matter of Brandy Cambridge, appellant,

v Scott Alan Cambridge, respondent.

(Docket No. V-11733/98)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Law Guardian for the child to enlarge the record on appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated May 13, 2003, to include an affidavit of the respondent dated October 10, 2003.

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

ORDERED that the motion is denied.

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4669

M/mv

2003-04594

In the Matter of Brandy Cambridge, appellant,

v Scott Cambridge, respondent.

(Docket No. V-11733-98)

SCHEDULING ORDER

Appeal by Brandy Cambridge from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated May 13, 2003. Pursuant to § 670.4(d)(3) of the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[d][3]), it is

ORDERED that the scheduling order of this court dated August 18, 2003, in the above-entitled proceeding is amended to provide that the appellant's time to perfect the appeal by causing the original papers constituting the record on the appeal to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]) and by serving and filing the brief on the appeal is enlarged until January 20, 2004.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4894

E/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

HOWARD MILLER

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-03594

In the Matter of Civic Association of Setaukets,

et al., respondents, v Frank Trotta, et al., appellants.

(Ind. No. 13293/02)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellants to enlarge the record on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 3, 2003, to include a certain letter dated June 21, 2001, with attached Certificate of Existing Use.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the stipulation of the parties dated October 10, 2003.

ORDERED that the motion is granted

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M3980

In the Matter of the Dismissal of

Causes for Failure to Perfect -

October 2003 Calendar

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Dismissal for Failure to Timely Perfect

The appellants or petitioners in the following named causes have failed to perfect their respective appeals or proceedings within the time limitations specified in subdivision (e) of section 670.8 of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.8[e]). The titles of the matters appeared on a dismissal calendar published in the New York Law Journal, and the appellants or petitioners failed to make applications to enlarge the time to perfect within 10 days after the last date of publication.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(h) it is,

ORDERED that the following named causes are dismissed.

Docket No.Title
2000-03813Telebank v Balice
2001-03475Matter of Starks v Goord
2002-04581Matter of Bayberry Association of New Rochelle, Inc. V Board of Assess
2002-09465Auguste v Linden Gardens Condominium
2002-09915Skewes v Infranca
2002-10165Matter of Jenkins v Mazzuca
2002-10263Djemal v Dabah
2002-10485Matter of Louise Jurgens, Deceased; Witzenburg, James: Jurgens, Charle
2002-10955Matter of Molinari v Molinari
2002-11117Kapsis v Peragine
2002-112829394 LLC v Kehler
2002-11436Matter of Morales v Goord
2002-11507Bartone v County of Nassau
2002-11568Abid v Edwards
2002-11593Perez v Lutheran Medical Center
2003-00147Matter of Grucci v Giresi
2003-00195Hustins v Viterise
2003-00202Pillai v Pillai
2003-00219Guarneri v Rama
2003-00233Moutopoulos v Meli
2003-00253Geffner v North Shore University Hospital
2003-00275Rodriguez v Brandes
2003-00280County of Nassau v Palion
2003-00287Lee v New York Blood Center
2003-00292Canzani v County of Nassau
2003-00315Triola v Baldo
2003-00317Jama Ltd. V Moscatiello
2003-00319Bergmann v Bergmann
2003-00337Haight v Estate of Humbert Dephamphilis
2003-00354Matter of Sag Harbor Villas Home Owners Assoc., Inc. V Bd. Of Trustees
2003-00357DiMaio v Automall Imports, Ltd.
2003-00358Automotive Manufacturing & Supply Company v Saccullo
2003-00369Davey v Davey
2003-00378Doe v Rohan
2003-00382Guarino v West-Put Contracting Company
2003-00395Politis v Prudential Insurance Company of America
2003-00398Justin v Doral Greens Limited Partnership
2003-00400Birks v Burwell
2003-00403Kalwiss v 214-17 41st Avenue Corp., d/b/a Monahan & Fitzgerald Bar
2003-00404Fleischer v Ottato Foods, Ltd, d/b/a/ Marino Brothers Grocery, a/k/a M
2003-00417Dingle v National Car Rental Financing Ltd.
2003-00418Zaccagnino v Waldbaums, Inc.
2003-00423Matter of Geffner v North Shore University Hospital
2003-00427Dalton v Dalton
2003-00433Liner v Starrett City, Inc.
2003-00435Saleh v Brooklyn Federal savings Bank
2003-00437Sharma v Panico
2003-00446Levy v Carmazi
2003-00466Lichtenstein v Barenbaum
2003-00468Howard Berger Company, Inc. V Ye
2003-00479Lagudi v Spataro
2003-00488Charles & Boudin v Meyer
2003-00499Aroose v Aroose
2003-00501Aroose v Aroose
2003-00503Aroose v Aroose
2003-00504Aroose v Aroose
2003-00505Wisser v Catapano
2003-00514Cit Group/Sales Financing Inc. V Freedom Marine Corp., d/b/a Liberty M
2003-00518Del Monaco v Calmenson
2003-00523Gerzof v Lerner Siblings Partnership
2003-00525Connor v Charlop
2003-00535Matter of Leeffler v New York State Department of Environmental Conser
2003-00539Kumar v Yonkers Contracting Company, Inc.
2003-00552Murillo v Podgurski
2003-00554Matter of Carrera v Reilly
2003-00555Timoney v Emma
2003-00556Chery v 846 Prospect Avenue Grocery Corporation
2003-00559Raia v Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America
2003-00595Santos v City of New York
2003-00602Alfaro v Heyward Street Holding, Corp.
2003-00607Driscoll v Driscoll
2003-00619Schloss v Horton Medical Center, Inc.
2003-00620Carmona v Oliver
2003-00624Bernstein v Starrett City, Inc.,
2003-00629Suero v Prospect park Associates Holdings, L.P.
2003-00635Mendoza v Trumbell Insurance Company
2003-00639Molina v All Seasons Door Window, Inc.
2003-00640B & N Properties, LLC v Elmar Associates, LLC
2003-00641Gordon v Maceus
2003-00642B & N Properties, LLC v Elmar Associates, LLC
2003-00647Meade v Heart Ambulette, Corp.
2003-00653Matter of Classon & Kent, Inc. V New York City Department of Finance
2003-00654Dell'Aira v K. Sohmer Contracting, Inc.
2003-00658Bernard v Careccia
2003-00669Matter of Sound Shore Medical Center of Westchester v NYS Nurses Assoc
2003-00677Carlton v Nassau County Police Department
2003-00678Stein v Stein
2003-00686Anderson v Town of Oyster Bay
2003-00692Werfel v Blocker
2003-00699PNE Media, LLC v Nash Estafanous
2003-00706Jamaica Hospital Medical Center v Carrier Corporation
2003-00717Boone v North Shore University Hospital At Forest Hills
2003-00719Brajic v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
2003-00723Poux v St. Catherine of Genoa
2003-00736Matter of Hudgins-Middleton v Board of Education
2003-00737Inesti v Yoo
2003-00739Matter of Eagle Insurance Company v Russell
2003-00744Matter of City of New York v Perez
2003-00745Friedrich v Friedrich
2003-00758Behrens v Detor
2003-00770DiGeronimo v Weissberg
2003-00772Quinones v Garcia
2003-00774Fitzgerald v Manufacturer's Hanover Trust Company
2003-00779Dembitzer v Chera
2003-00797Orr v Panzer Demolition and Construction
2003-00801Mauro v Swezey's Department Stores
2003-00805Matter of Bronxville Obstetrical & Gynecological Group, PC
2003-00806Matter of Armbruster; Bronxville Obstetrical & Gynecological Group, PC
2003-00815Pelaez v DiRusso
2003-00818Kelly v Kramer
2003-00825Hopkins v Covey, Roberts, Buchanan & McGroddy, Attorney At law
2003-00827Hopkins v Covey, Roberts, Buchanan & McGroddy, Attorney At law
2003-00828Reiser v Reiser
2003-00838Foster v Carriage House Owners, Inc.
2003-00844Demesa-Bruce v Sayegh
2003-00847Goodman v City of New York
2003-00857Medvin v Burton
2003-00887Matter of Town of Ramapo v Ramapo Police Benevolent Association
2003-00894Matter of Quinn v Humenik
2003-00899Schlecker v Yorktown Electrical & Lighting Distributers, Inc.
2003-00908Giunta v Webcor Electronics, Inc.
2003-00909Ahituv v Ahituv
2003-00910Peterson v Roadblock Bar, Inc.
2003-00913Walia v Meryc Bus Co., Inc.
2003-00915DME Contracting, Inc. V Sea Crest Construction Corporation
2003-00916Budd v Cargo Transfer Inc.
2003-00920Baldon v County of Nassau
2003-00924Posillico v Teplitz
2003-00925Niewdach v Ebron
2003-00928Matter of Galinkin v David Kim, Inc.
2003-00930Weingard v Weingard
2003-00935Matter of Wolff v Brewster Central School District
2003-00936Chase Manhattan Bank v Savitt
2003-00956Frederick v University Towers Associates
2003-00958Howell v City of New York City
2003-00964Khayut v Kletsel
2003-00971Viola v Bdil
2003-00983Schwartz v Schwartz
2003-00985Nationsbanc v Weintraub
2003-00989Thompson v Thompson
2003-00991Hunter v Hunter
2003-00992GE Capital Vendor Financial Services v Richardson
2003-01008Sauer v Sauer
2003-01054Lasda v Lasda
2003-01057O'Reilly v Resource NE of Long Island Resource NE Inc.
2003-01064Malleolo v Malleolo
2003-01066Nesenoff v Nesenoff
2003-01070Kandrach v Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc.
2003-01084Matter of Gallagher v Oechsler
2003-01088Aseel v Aseel
2003-01089Coronia v Cinnanut, Inc.
2003-01090Arevalo v Nassau County Health Care Corporation
2003-01099Daniel Perla Associates, LP v H&L Nostrand Food Corp.
2003-01100Tyler v Tyler
2003-01102Abraham v Abraham
2003-01104Marengo v Marengo
2003-01116D'Allessandro v Tishman Realty & Construction Co., Inc.
2003-01125Citibank, N.A. v Walker
2003-01127Udell v Keingstein
2003-01129Kew Gardens Hills Apartment Owners, Inc. V Horing Welikson & Rosen, P.
2003-01130Jeanty v Walters
2003-01133Public Administrator of Kings County v City of New York
2003-01137Owaid v Allstate Insurance Company
2003-01139Marshall v Intercounty Collision, Inc.
2003-01140Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. v Geed
2003-01146Levine v New York City Transit Authority
2003-01148Gamble v Western Beef Merrick Boulevard, Inc.
2003-01150Mengisopoulos v Meyers parking System, Inc.
2003-01151Rakhanaev v Geller
2003-01153Despen v Churchman
2003-01158Ray v Brooklyn Union Gas Company
2003-01159Ray v Brooklyn Union Gas Company
2003-01163Porter v Porter
2003-01166Porter v Porter
2003-01167Brower v Road Rescue, Inc.
2003-01168Porter v Porter
2003-01169Worth v Zamboli
2003-01175Mendes v Massapequa Park Sunoco Service Station, Inc.
2003-01178Leli v Occhiopinto
2003-01186Maffeo v Tilley
2003-01187Benjamin v Benjamin
2003-01191Mecca v Shang
2003-01193Neshev v Polizzi
2003-01194Candon Court Homeowners Association, Inc. V Motelson
2003-01201Barlow v Werner Company
2003-01207Oren v Gerard J. Picaso, Inc.
2003-01208Chidichimo v DaimlerChrysler Corporation
2003-01212Daniel Perla Associates, L.P. v Between The Bridges Realty Corporation
2003-01215Kaplan v Miranda
2003-01230Buitrago v Hanenberg
2003-01231Jordan v Huntington
2003-01233Zhao v Zhang
2003-01236Elkholy v McGraw-Hill Building Management
2003-01238Salcedo v St. John's Queens Hospital
2003-01245Mayer v Barbash
2003-01246Peterson v State of New York
2003-01247Caracciola v State of New York
2003-01249Matter of Szkambara; Estate of Michael Szkambara
2003-01251Matter of Morales v Bongiorno
2003-01260Orlando v Orlando
2003-01261Gallimore v Wing
2003-01281Nationscredit Financial Services Corporation v Pizzella
2003-01287Fezzuoglio v Ascencio
2003-01292Mazzei v Cacucciolo
2003-01302Lespinasse v Florian's Food Service, Inc.
2003-01307VonDorpp v Homan
2003-01311Saracena v Mittleman
2003-01322Friedman v Friedman
2003-01328Leno v DePasquale
2003-01330Cancellare v Jabkowski
2003-01336Short v Short
2003-01337Nesconset Nursing Center v Viscardi
2003-01338Johansen v Coca-Cola Company
2003-01339Greco v Jean-Baptiste
2003-01340Greco v Jean-Baptiste
2003-01341Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, f/k/a Berkeley Federal Bank & Trust, FSB v Kha
2003-01344McGoldrick v Mayfair Super Market, Inc., d/b/a Edwards Super Food Store
2003-01351Erdmann v Erdmann
2003-01352Jacobs v City of New York
2003-01355Nazif v East Meadow School
2003-01363Matter of Rodriguez v Phillips
2003-01367Matter of Doyle v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Carmel
2003-01381Matter of PRM Claim Services, Inc. V Allstate Insurance Company
2003-01383Clifford v Baldwin Union Free School District
2003-01385Kuske v Grosskopf
2003-01391David v David
2003-01406Armand v Cohen
2003-01418Perkins v St. Vincent's Hospital and Medical Center
2003-01420Nieh v Nieh, n/k/a Estate of Nieh
2003-01421Fridman v City of New York
2003-01422Siu v Mastandrea
2003-01436Matter of Government Employees Insurance Company v Aronov
2003-01440Neptune v City of New York
2003-01458Matter of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v Reid
2003-01471Lubkemeir v Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
2003-01474State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v Hayes
2003-01475Pinkall v Pileski
2003-01488Tri-Global Management, Corp. V Richardson
2003-01489Yetsam v G.M.D. Shipyard
2003-01494Matter of Berger, Deceased; Manes
2003-01502Harco Consultants Corporation v Merrick Blvd. Holding Corporation
2003-01504Harco Consultants Corporation v Merrick Blvd. Holding Corporation
2003-01505DiVirgilio v Congregation Kehal Keren Ledovic Zichron Dov, Inc.
2003-01507Jones v Radeker
2003-01508Paley v Landau Grocery Store
2003-01510Matter of Allstate Insurance Company v Palmer
2003-01515Anderson v GSL Enterprises, Inc.
2003-01517Pinto v Pinto
2003-01521Derenches v Sea Crest Const. Corp./James McMullagh Company
2003-01528Peterson v Town of Hempstead
2003-01535Shahid v Bonilla
2003-01537Matter of Canale, Deceased; Scomello
2003-01538Kings Park Contracting, Inc. V Tuck Sea Restaurant Corporation
2003-01539Matter of Stevens v Giannadeo
2003-01540NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v Giusalton Enterprises, Inc.
2003-01541Homer, Inc. V Zervos
2003-01547Vinci v Denny's Restaurant, Inc.
2003-01551Matter of Eagle Insurance Company v Travelers Insurance Company a/s/o
2003-01552Ivanyushkina v City of New York
2003-01564NYCTL 1998-1 Trust v Aulston
2003-01568Rosendale v Law Offices of Charles G. Stiene, P.C.
2003-01572Familia v Mayor
2003-01574Stillwagon v Dover Elevator Company
2003-01575Siegel v Shinderman
2003-01581Tighe v Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
2003-01582Scalone v Witkowska
2003-01586Wisell v Indo-Med Commodities, Inc.
2003-01591Grace v City of Mount Vernon
2003-01598Zaccagnino v Society of Don Bosco, Order of Salesians
2003-01604Manges v Travelers Property Casualty, Corp.
2003-01612Keegan v Prudential Insurance, Co.
2003-01623Matter of N.Y.A.S.H.A. v Clarendon National Insurance Company
2003-01629Kartanos v Politopoulos
2003-01630Rivera v Flomenhaft
2003-01631Alert Security Sales, Inc. V American Express Travel Related Services
2003-01632ML Realty Group, Inc. V MCS Realty Partners, L.P.
2003-01638Matter of Lynn v Cahill
2003-01643Caracciola v State of New York
2003-01662Salerno v North Shore Towers Apts., Inc.
2003-01668Sirigo v Parish of St. James
2003-01673Buehler v Buehler
2003-01690Connor v Medford elementary School
2003-01691Gevertz v United Jewish Appeal Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of
2003-01695Truckers Bank Plan, a division of 1st Source Bank v RIT Auto Leasing G
2003-01698Rine v Rine
2003-01706Riverside Capital Advisors, Inc. V Winchester Global Trust Company Lim
2003-01707Carnel v Berju
2003-01708Tuli v Sabharwal
2003-01709Tuli v Sachdev
2003-01711Street v North Shore University Hospital
2003-01717Walker v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority, d/b/a MTA/L.I. Bus
2003-01721Senese v Dellavecchia
2003-01723Merchants Securities (Loans) Ltd. V Weinroth
2003-01725Shore Pharmaceutical Providers, Inc. V Glen Island Care Center
2003-01728Van Kuyk v Serrian
2003-01729Gold-Sparrow v Giurco
2003-01730Englard v Kamran Pourgol Realty, Corp.
2003-01731Matter of North Shore F.C.P., Inc. V Mammina
2003-01733Linder v County of Nassau
2003-01740Botte v Botte
2003-01743Cronin v DeLisi
2003-01751Caponigro v Lucchi-Caponigro
2003-01754M.G. Kraemer Construction, Inc. V Kandrach
2003-01761Leha v Yonkers General Hospital
2003-01763Macchia v DeLorenzo
2003-01764Archer v Lehman
2003-01770Meagher v Leary
2003-01788Gannett Suburban Newspapers v El-Kam Realty Company
2003-01795Matter of GEICO General Insurance Company v General Accident Ins. Co.
2003-01828Matter of Malverne Muster Club v Board of Appeals of Town of Brookhave
2003-01844Zhi He Ma v Citibank
2003-01858DaSilva v City of New York
2003-01861Stein v Stern
2003-01862Dellimore v Pfizer, Inc., f/k/a Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc.
2003-01864O'Malley v City of New York
2003-01866Davey v Davey
2003-01870Johnson v City of New York
2003-01871Matter of Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v Fatay
2003-01872Epps v Rutland Nursing Home Co., Inc.
2003-01876Romero v Decatur Stuyvesant Senior Citizen Center
2003-01879Nelson v City of New York
2003-01884Hwang v Sano
2003-01887Mancini v City of New York
2003-01911Mann v Rusk
2003-01919Achaibar v Jagpal
2003-01922Iannello v Iannello
2003-01923Ritziu v Ritziu
2003-01927Pilger v Bergner
2003-01935McKenzie v Lim
2003-01936Bonet v State of New York
2003-01938Santiago v Griffith Trucking
2003-01953Reilly v Reilly
2003-01966Wood v Koenigsberg
2003-01987Medina v Luzon
2003-01993Castillo v Exclusive Motors, Inc.
2003-01998Raoul v East Ramapo Central School District
2003-02000Citifinancial Mortgage Company, Inc., f/k/a Ford Consumer Finance Comp
2003-02001Syndicate Trading, LLC v Fox
2003-02019Jayson v Suffolk Urology Associates, P.C.
2003-02022Matter of Morales v Morales
2003-02032Matter of M., David; Suffolk County District Attorney
2003-02035Matter of Breslow, Barry; New York Stock Exchange
2003-02040Goldin v Goldin
2003-02053Matter of Bennett v New Rochelle Police Department
2003-02056Matter of Capwell v Westchester County Health Care Corporation
2003-02058Riga v Riga
2003-02059Riga v Riga
2003-02061TIG Insurance v Wacky Wax
2003-02063Beatrice v Eichen
2003-02064Dodge v City of New Rochelle
2003-02080Losner v Cashline, L.P.
2003-02081Sosa v New York City Housing Authority
2003-02084Thompson v Bilak
2003-02087Rivera v Richmond Block 2850 Corporation
2003-02092Ferrari v Town of Huntington
2003-02116Kenney v Hudson
2003-02123Miele v Maligiamokis
2003-02125DeWitt v DeWitt
2003-02127Calderon v Monadnock Construction
2003-02129Yung v Million Family March, Inc.
2003-02141Clarke v Barr
2003-02150Vega v New York Racing Association, Inc.
2003-02154Chessen-Gelles v Sher
2003-02175Song v Song
2003-02177Ryf v Long Island Paramount Party Productions, Inc.
2003-02178Raiford v Adelphi University
2003-02185Ciaravalo v Ciaravalo
2003-02192Ranghelli v Incorporated Village of Lawrence
2003-02197Vaccaro v Vitrano
2003-02198Roland v PBL Entertainment, Inc., d/b/a South Beach Water Club
2003-02199Paula v William Dye Realty Corporation
2003-02204Bacchus v Vickers
2003-02205Stein v New York Stair Cushion Company, Inc.
2003-02208DeCarlo v Incorporated Village of Garden City
2003-02218Ayarza v 1552-1575-1581 President Street Realty Corporation
2003-02222Gugliotta v Apollo Roland Brokerage, Inc.
2003-02230Kumar v Nassau County
2003-02232Matter of Villone v Nassau County Civil Service Commission
2003-02236Nationscredit Home Equity Services v Stoecker
2003-02258Klinger v Palmer
2003-02259Gotham Plaza Associates, LLC v KFC of America, Inc.
2003-02262Marshall v County of Nassau
2003-02280Matter of Ramsey v Town of Hempstead
2003-02281Hanrahan v Rosen
2003-02292Amy v Egitto
2003-02295Zafran v Zafran
2003-02301Trent v Town of Riverhead
2003-02320Bankers Trust Company of California, N.A. v Davies
2003-02324Danish Consulate General U.N. Mission v Browne
2003-02332Perell v Krause
2003-02338Wasco Funding, Corp. V Wolf
2003-02345Giannopoulos v Giannopoulos
2003-02366Matter of Birchwood Towers #One Associates v Driscoll
2003-02371New Bright Cleaners Inc. V Star Associates
2003-02372Matter of Staten v Chrysler Insurance Company
2003-02413Snyder v Snyder
2003-02418Dickey v Cashman
2003-02419Hernandez v C&L Electric, Inc.
2003-02420Grioli v Brothers Aluminum Corporation
2003-02428Matter of McDougald v Inc. Village of Hempstead
2003-02432Talmadge v Bachenheimer
2003-02433Antonetti v Dell
2003-02434Shrenkel v Mainella
2003-02448Island Associate Real Estate, Inc. V Hassett
2003-02449Evans v Evans
2003-02450Grignon v White
2003-02469Marone v Slattery Associates, Inc.
2003-02472Palka v MFA Construction, Inc.
2003-02477Tri-Global Management Corp. V Richardson
2003-02478Schaff v Letterelli
2003-02479Acevedo v New York City Housing Authority
2003-02486Chase Manhattan Bank v Harden
2003-02490Ancona v City of New York
2003-02491Goldphil Realty Company, Inc. V Pankin
2003-02492HomeSide Lending, Inc. V Woods
2003-02504Muir v Muir
2003-02505Matter of Grillo, Deceased; Riedel
2003-02513Lopez v Yusuf
2003-02529Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company v DeFilipo
2003-02535Leo v Levi
2003-02536Matter of Gawlowski v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhave
2003-02543Matter of Caggiano v Trotta
2003-02547Gihon, LLC v 501 Second Street, LLC
2003-02558Flood v Flood
2003-02562Housey v Tower Elevator Corporation
2003-02565Donofrio v Citibank, N.A.
2003-02570Roufanis v Roufanis
2003-02571Matter of Colonial Penn Insurance Company v Gorbunov
2003-02574Mauro v Gold Star Limo, Corp.
2003-02575Wasiak v Staten Island University Hospital
2003-02576Matter of State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Company v City of New York
2003-02577Vaz v Admiral Technolotgies, Inc.
2003-02578Washington Mutual Homeloans, Inc. V Burrell
2003-02579Washington Mutual Homeloans, Inc. V Burrell
2003-02580Perry v Castellanos
2003-02581Zhelyayev v Nam
2003-02589Jagdeo v Sears, Roebuck & Company
2003-02600Employers Insurance of Wausau, A Mutual Company v Gallo Wine Distribut
2003-02603Loduca v Hernandez
2003-02617Matter of New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company v DeMatteo
2003-02618Bell v Waldbaum, Inc.
2003-02619Zizza v Realini
2003-02620Stein v Stern
2003-02625Ahrens v Chisena
2003-02629Brown v Metropolitan Transportation Authority
2003-02635Rosenthal v Rosenthal
2003-02636Pressley v Jo-Lu-Bee Realty Corporation
2003-02645Lagudi v Spataro
2003-02655Kousoulas v Two Cent, Corp.
2003-02658Ramos v Kozarez
2003-02659Winslow v AJ Construction Company
2003-02665Friedman v Vanlowe
2003-02671Lambert-Wright v McCaw
2003-02672Schlesinger v Schlesinger
2003-02674Fleet National Bank v Amerex Textiles Company, Inc.
2003-02706McGrath v Town of Smithtown
2003-02726King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc. V Center Moriches Square, LLC
2003-02727Orlando v NRP, LLC II
2003-02729Luna v ramirez
2003-02753Mitchell v Harrison
2003-02754Levine v Levine
2003-02758Armano v Armano
2003-02759Ross v Syndicate Trading, LLC
2003-02760Town of Mount Pleasant v Legion of Christ, Inc.
2003-02761Nadzam v The Food Emporium, Inc.
2003-02762Town of Mount Pleasant v Legion of Christ, Inc.
2003-02769Perna v Ellner
2003-02771Matter of Uniformed Fire Fighters Association, Inc., Local 273 v City
2003-02772North White Properties, LLP v Westchester County Realty, Inc.
2003-02775Sivak v Grimaldi
2003-02778Grabel v Grabel
2003-02781Maser v Maser
2003-02784Nash v Giacobbe
2003-02809Branch Holding Company v Advanced Medical Laboratory, Inc.
2003-02817Scarpati v Shroid Construction, Inc.
2003-02828Brandes v North Shore University Hospital
2003-02831Kwon-Ho Lee v Trans American Trucking Service, Inc.
2003-02838Jones v Diamond
2003-02839Torres v Lopes
2003-02850Hussain v Atlas Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
2003-02856Brandywine Realty Trust v Blodnick, Blodnick & Zelin, P.C.
2003-02857The Hospital For Joint Diseases v County-Wide Insurance Company
2003-02858Lee v First Episcopal District of African Methodist Episcopal Church
2003-02866Geodata Plus, Inc. V Comps Inc.
2003-02870Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota v G & S School Street, Inc.
2003-02876Stefanello v Cinque
2003-02882Laskaris v Laskaris
2003-02885Lenox Hill Hospital a/a/o Raehle, Richar v Allstate Insurance Company
2003-02887Mason v Duane Reade, Inc.
2003-02910Blanco v Enterprise Rent-A-Car- Company
2003-02912Nunez v Goris
2003-02915Matter of Cohen v Village of Goshen
2003-02927Kryten Iron Works, Inc. V Morris Park Contracting, Corp.
2003-02931Maden v Kanaan
2003-02932Zarfati v Cougar Italian Fashion
2003-02936Zadov v Beslity
2003-02942Shahid v Brooklyn Legal Corporation Services
2003-02943Young v City of New York
2003-02944Schlesinger v Schlesinger
2003-02955Matter of Stampfel v Scarpetta
2003-02958Drantch v Shop Rite
2003-02961Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., f/k/a Norwest Mortgage, Inc. V Adjei-
2003-02997Sikic v Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
2003-03003Matter of Milton Avenue Homeowners Association, Inc. V PGS, LLC
2003-03035Santiago v Hickey
2003-03059Kornblum v Kornblum
2003-03060Nelson v Gomez
2003-03063Makris v Westchester County
2003-03071Schwartzberg v Kingsbridge Heights Care Center, Inc.
2003-03074Pongvitayapanu v Manhasset Remodeling, Inc.
2003-03095Hannah v Myers
2003-03100D&S Machine Co., Inc. V Kotliar
2003-03105Eckert v Queens College
2003-03107Matter of Nationwide Insurance Company v Mavroudes
2003-03108Uglialoro v Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company
2003-03111Burns v Scotman
2003-03119Lyons v Central Valley Realty Co., a Partnership
2003-03121Audax Construction Corp. V Metropolitan Transportatiion Authority
2003-03135United Recycling Systems of Long Island, Inc.
2003-03157Garcia v Bay Ridge Automobiles Ltd.
2003-03202Matero v Hart
2003-03208Central Suffolk Hospital v Sprance
2003-03327Caruso-Goleeke v Accurate Fence
2003-03517Donoghue v Donoghue
2003-03518Rouhani v Alishahi
2003-03521Donoghue v Donoghue
2003-03626Fuentes v State of New York
2003-03629Fuentes v State of New York
2003-03730Matter of Schettino v Village of Mamaroneck
2003-03832Gray v Gray
2003-03879Laneve v We Care Partnership
2003-03905D'Elia v Hill
2003-04270Elvir v Staten Island University Hospital
2003-04524Carmellie v Jurnack-Dewell
2003-04527Zeltser v U-Haul Company
2003-04881Schvimmer v Schlesinger
2003-05215XL Care Agency, Inc. V Jamal
2003-06412Matter of Burton
2003-07088Mazzei v Cacucciolo
2003-07251Fleet Capital Leasing/Global Vendor Finance v Angiuli Motors, Inc.



Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4663

M/mv

2003-06616

In the Matter of Charmaine Freels, respondent,

v Charles E. Freels, Jr., appellant.

(Docket No. F-4172-01)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Appeal by Charles E. Freels, Jr. from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated June 18, 2003. By scheduling order dated September 18, 2003, 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 proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or

(2) if there were such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript was received, and indicating the date that it was received; or

(3) if the transcript was not received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it was ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript was expected; or

(4) if the appellant was indigent and could not afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeal, a motion in this court for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101; or

(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal.

The appellant has failed to comply with the scheduling order. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(5) of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][5]), it is

ORDERED that the parties or their attorneys are directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding for failure to comply with the scheduling order dated September 18, 2003, by each filing an affirmation or affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this court and serving one copy of the same on each other on or before December 19, 2003; 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




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4654

M/mv

2003-06667

In the Matter of Sharon Gaulman, appellant,

v Donnell Williams, respondent.

(Docket No. P-1759-93)

SCHEDULING ORDER

Appeal by Sharon Gaulman from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated June 18, 2003. By decision and order of this court dated November 12, 2003, the appellant's motion for leave to prosecute the above-entitled appeal as a poor person was denied. 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 proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or

(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or

(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or

(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and 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 shall not be dismissed.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk

The Case Manager assigned to this case is Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4660

M/mv

2003-02286, 2003-02288

In the Matter of Paul J. (Anonymous).

Administration for Children's Services, respondent;

Tamika F. (Anonymous), appellant.

(Proceeding No. 1)

(Docket No. N-7713-01)

2003-02291, 2003-02293

In the Matter of Tyquan J. (Anonymous).

Administration for Children's Services, respondent;

Tamika F. (Anonymous), appellant.

(Proceeding No. 2)

(Docket No. N-7712-01)

2003-02299, 2003-02300

In the Matter of Shamik F. (Anonymous).

Administration for Children's Services, respondent;

Tamika F. (Anonymous), appellant.

(Proceeding No. 3)

(Docket No. N-7711-01)

SCHEDULING ORDER

Appeals by Tamika F. from three orders of the Family Court, Queens County, dated October 30, 2002, and three orders of the same court, dated March 4, 2003, respectively. The appellant's brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this court on August 14, 2003. Pursuant to § 670.4(d)(3) of the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[d][3]), it is

ORDERED that the scheduling order of this court dated September, 24 2003, in the above-entitled proceedings is amended to provide that the time of the respondent/the law guardian to serve and file a brief in the above-entitled appeals is enlarged until December 22, 2003.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4932

K/cf

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.

FRED T. SANTUCCI

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN

ANITA R. FLORIO

SONDRA MILLER, JJ.

2003-04820

In the Matter of Edward Lowenthal,

an attorney and counselor-at-law.

DECISION & ORDER
VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION

Edward Lowenthal has voluntarily submitted an affidavit dated May 29, 2003, wherein he, an attorney in good standing, resigns from the New York State Bar. Mr. Lowenthal was admitted to the Bar in the State of New York at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on June 17, 1970. He is presently an attorney in good standing in the State of New York and there are no complaints or charges of professional misconduct pending against him. Mr. Lowenthal presently resides in New Jersey, no longer practices law, and, under these circumstances, does not wish to pay the biennial registration fee.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the resignation, it is

ORDERED that the voluntary resignation of Edward Lowenthal, an attorney in good standing, is accepted and directed to be filed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the name of Edward Lowenthal is removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in New York State, without prejudice to an application for reinstatement; and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, Edward Lowenthal, is commanded to desist and refrain from (l) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another in the State of New York, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority in this State, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto in this State, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York.

RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, ALTMAN, FLORIO and S. MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4916

K/cf

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

FRED T. SANTUCCI

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN

ANITA R. FLORIO

NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.

1991-01728

In the Matter of Alton H. Maddox,

a suspended attorney.

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
FOR REINSTATEMENT

Motion by the respondent, inter alia, for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law. By opinion and order of this court dated August 1, 1994, he was suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years. By decision and order on motion of this court dated October 12, 1994, his motion for reargument of the order of suspension was denied. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department on March 15, 1976.

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

ORDERED that the motion is denied.

PRUDENTI, P.J., SANTUCCI, ALTMAN, FLORIO and SMITH, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk



Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4657

M/mv

2002-06741, 2002-07868

In the Matter of Vincent Malfetano, respondent,

v Sandra Parker, appellant.

(Docket Nos. O-01520-02, V-2699-02)

SCHEDULING ORDER

Appeals by Sandra Parker from two orders of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated June 24, 2002, and August 6, 2002, respectively. Pursuant to § 670.4(d)(3) of the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[d][3]), it is

ORDERED that the scheduling order of this court dated June 18, 2003, in the above-entitled proceeding is amended to provide that the appellant's time to perfect the appeals by causing the original papers constituting the record on the appeals to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]) and by serving and filing the brief on the appeals is enlarged until December 12, 2003.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4584

M/mv

2003-07782

In the Matter of Clifford R. Medney, appellant-

respondent, v Tania Medney, respondent-appellant.

(Docket No. F-00170-00)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated August 6, 2003. By scheduling order dated September 29, 2003, 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 proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or

(2) if there were such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript was received, and indicating the date that it was received; or

(3) if the transcript was not received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it was ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript was expected; or

(4) if the appellant was indigent and could not afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeal, a motion in this court for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101; or

(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal.

The appellant has failed to comply with the scheduling order. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(5) of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][5]), it is

ORDERED that the parties or their attorneys are directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal and the cross appeal in the above-entitled proceeding for failure to comply with the scheduling order dated September 29, 2003, by each filing an affirmation or affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this court and serving one copy of the same on each other on or before December 19, 2003; 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




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4959

O/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

GLORIA GOLDSTEIN

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-06223

In the Matter of Robert F. Meehan, et al.,

respondents, v County of Westchester,

et al., appellants, et al., defendant.

(Index No. 18893/20)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Renewed motion by the appellant County of Westchester for a preference in the calendaring of an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 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 appeal shall be calendared when it is fully perfected.

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and TOWNES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4892

E/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

HOWARD MILLER

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-10001

In the Matter of Caroline Mellone,

petitioner, v Sebastian Mellone, respondent.

(Docket No. V-09296-03, V-09296-03/03A)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the respondent for leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated November 7, 2003, and to stay enforcement of the order pending the 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; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for a stay is denied as academic.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk



Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4659

M/mv

2003-07167

In the Matter of Treyvon N. (Anonymous).

Administration for Children's Services,

petitioner-respondent; Jean Q. (Anonymous),

appellant; Latisha P. (Anonymous), respondent.

(Docket No. N-1712/02)

SCHEDULING ORDER

Appeal by Jean Q. from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County, dated June 25, 2003. By decision and order of this court dated October 6, 2003, the appellant's motion for leave to prosecute the above-entitled appeal as a poor person was denied with leave to renew on or before November 10, 2003. The motion was not renewed. 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 proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or

(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or

(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or

(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and 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 shall not be dismissed.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk

The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.




Go to Top.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4911

K/cf

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

DAVID S. RITTER

FRED T. SANTUCCI

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN

ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.

2003-04038

In the Matter of Howard P. Newman,

an attorney and counselor-at-law.

DECISION & ORDER
VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION

Howard P. Newman has voluntarily submitted an affidavit dated April 24, 2003, wherein he, an attorney in good standing, resigns from the New York State Bar. Mr. Newman was admitted to the Bar in the State of New York at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on January 17, 1979. He is presently an attorney in good standing in the State of New York and there are no complaints or charges of professional misconduct pending against him. Mr. Newman presently resides and practices law in Florida, does not practice law in New York, and under these circumstances, does not wish to pay the biennial registration fee.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the resignation, it is

ORDERED that the voluntary resignation of Howard P. Newman, an attorney in good standing, is accepted and directed to be filed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the name of Howard P. Newman is removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, without prejudice to an application for reinstatement; and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, Howard P. Newman , is commanded to desist and refrain from (l) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another in the State of New York, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority in this State, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto in this State, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York.

PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, SANTUCCI, ALTMAN and FLORIO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4903

K/cf

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

DAVID S. RITTER

FRED T. SANTUCCI

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN

ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.

2000-03849

In the Matter of Melinda Pollard,

a suspended attorney.

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
FOR REINSTATEMENT

Motion by the respondent, Melinda Pollard, for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on December 7, 1983. By opinion and order of this court dated December 17, 2001, she was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.

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

ORDERED that the motion is held in abeyance, and the matter is referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to investigate and report on the respondent's current fitness to be an attorney including, but not limited to, the submission of a letter of employment from her post-suspension employer.

PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, SANTUCCI, ALTMAN and FLORIO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk



Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4896

Y/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

HOWARD MILLER

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-09974

In the Matter of Jeffrey Pollock, respondent,

v Janice Vega, appellant.

(Docket Nos. V-2972/99, V-1111/99)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant to stay enforcement of an order of the Family Court, Queens County dated October 24, 2003, requiring the subject child to reside in New York with the appellant pending completion of the trial and requiring the child to be enrolled in a school in New York City.

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

ORDERED that the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see Family Ct Act 1112[a]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the motion is granted and enforcement of the order requiring the subject child to reside in New York with the appellant pending completion of the trial and requiring the child to be enrolled in a school in New York City is stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeal; and it is further,

ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, to immediately hear and determine the issue of an appropriate visitation schedule for the father pending the hearing and determination of the appeal or the issuance of a final order by the Family Court.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk



Go to Top.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4934

K/cf

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.

FRED T. SANTUCCI

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN

ANITA R. FLORIO

SONDRA MILLER, JJ.

2003-03344

In the Matter of Kent K. Reynolds,

an attorney and counselor-at-law.

DECISION & ORDER
VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION

Kent K. Reynolds has voluntarily submitted an affidavit dated April 9, 2003, wherein he, an attorney in good standing, resigns from the New York State Bar. Mr. Reynolds was admitted to the Bar in the State of New York at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on May 7, 1986. He is presently an attorney in good standing in the State of New York and there are no complaints or charges of professional misconduct pending against him. Mr. Reynolds presently resides in Missouri, does not practice law in New York and, under these circumstances, does not wish to pay the biennial registration fee.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the resignation, it is

ORDERED that the voluntary resignation of Kent K. Reynolds, an attorney in good standing, is accepted and directed to be filed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the name of Kent K. Reynolds is removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in New York State, without prejudice to an application for reinstatement; and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, Kent K. Reynolds, is commanded to desist and refrain from (l) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another in the State of New York, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority in this State, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto in this State, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York.

RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, ALTMAN, FLORIO and S. MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4664

M/mv

2002-11387

In the Matter of Dana Lisette S. (Anonymous).

Little Flower Children's Services, et al.,

respondents; Iris C. (Anonymous), appellant;

Maria M. (Anonymous), intervenor-appellant.

(Index No. B-23222-00)

SCHEDULING ORDER

Appeals by Iris C. and Maria M. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated November 12, 2002. The appellants' briefs were filed in the office of the Clerk of this court on August 18, 2003, and August 19, 2003, respectively. Pursuant to § 670.4(d)(3) of the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[d][3]), it is

ORDERED that the scheduling order of this court dated September 12, 2003, in the above-entitled proceeding is amended to provide that the time of the respondent/the law guardian to serve and file a brief in the above-entitled appeal is enlarged until December 12, 2003.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4656

M/mv

2003-04978

In the Matter of Rahmel S. (Anonymous),

appellant.

(Docket No. D-10907-01)

SCHEDULING ORDER

Appeal by the juvenile from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated May 22, 2003. The appellant's brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this court on October 23, 2003. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the Rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it is

ORDERED that within 45 days of the date of this order, the respondent 's brief in the above-entitled appeal, shall be served and filed.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk

The Case Manager assigned to this case is Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4666

M/mv

2002-11112

In the Matter of Savion S. (Anonymous).

Rockland County Department of Social Services,

respondent; Rosita S. (Anonymous), appellant.

(Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of Kiarra S. (Anonymous).

Rockland County Department of Social Services,

respondent; Rosita S. (Anonymous), appellant.

(Proceeding No. 2)

(Docket Nos. B-3200-02, B-3201-02)

SCHEDULING ORDER

Appeal by Rosita S. from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County, dated October 28, 2002. The appellant's brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this court on October 15, 2003, and the respondent's brief was filed on October 30, 2003. Pursuant to § 670.4(a)(2) of the Rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it is

ORDERED that the Law Guardian shall serve and file its brief on the appeal on or before December 19, 2003.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk

The Case Manager assigned to this case is Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.



Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4904

K/cf

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

DAVID S. RITTER

FRED T. SANTUCCI

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN

THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.

1993-06434

In the Matter of Patrick C. Sealy,

a disbarred attorney.

DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION
FOR REINSTATEMENT

Application by the respondent, Patrick C. Sealy, for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law. By opinion and order of this court dated April 17, 1995, the respondent was disbarred after a hearing at which the three charges of professional misconduct were sustained. The charges emanated from the respondent's submission of false vouchers to the Assigned Counsel Defender Plan between 1984 and 1988 for services which had not been performed. The charges were couched in terms of engaging in conduct: 1) adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law; 2) involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and 3) prejudicial to the administration of justice. By decision and order on application of this court dated June 17, 1998, the respondent's first application for reinstatement was denied as premature. By decision and order on application of this court dated December 10, 2002, his second application for reinstatement was held in abeyance, and the matter was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness for an investigation and report on his current fitness to be an attorney. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on July 28, 1982.

Upon all of the papers filed in connection with this application, it is

ORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that, effective immediately, the respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, and the Clerk of the court is directed to restore the name of Patrick C. Sealy to the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, SANTUCCI, ALTMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk



Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4909

K/cf

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

DAVID S. RITTER

FRED T. SANTUCCI

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN

SONDRA MILLER, JJ.

2001-03562

In the Matter of Darren M. Shapiro, a

suspended attorney.

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
FOR REINSTATEMENT

Motion by the respondent, Darren M. Shapiro, for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law. By opinion and order of this court dated October 28, 2002, he was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year upon his conviction of a serious crime. On December 7, 2000, the respondent pleaded guilty to obstructing governmental administration, a class A misdemeanor, in violation of Penal Law § 195.05, and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, a class A misdemeanor, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3). He was sentenced, inter alia, to three years' probation. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on January 27, 1999, under the name Darren Mel Shapiro.

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

ORDERED that the motion is held in abeyance and the matter is referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness for an investigation and report on the respondent's current fitness to be an attorney.

PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, SANTUCCI, ALTMAN and S. MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4935

K/cf

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

DAVID S. RITTER

FRED T. SANTUCCI

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN

ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.

2003-02987

In the Matter of Gabrielle A. Shinohara,

an attorney and counselor-at-law.

DECISION & ORDER
VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION

Gabrielle A. Shinohara has voluntarily submitted an affidavit dated April 4, 2003, wherein she, an attorney in good standing, resigns from the New York State Bar. Ms. Shinohara was admitted to the Bar in the State of New York at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on June 24, 1981. She is presently an attorney in good standing in the State of New York and there are no complaints or charges of professional misconduct pending against her. Ms. Shinohara presently resides in Arizona, does not intend to return to New York to practice law, and, under these circumstances, does not wish to pay the biennial registration fee.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the resignation, it is

ORDERED that the voluntary resignation of Gabrielle A. Shinohara, an attorney in good standing, is accepted and directed to be filed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the name of Gabrielle A. Shinohara is removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, without prejudice to an application for reinstatement; and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, Gabrielle A. Shinohara, is commanded to desist and refrain from (l) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another in the State of New York, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority in this State, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto in this State, and (4) holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York.

PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, SANTUCCI, ALTMAN and FLORIO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4655

M/mv

2002-05308

In the Matter of Nia V. (Anonymous).

Eleanor V. (Anonymous), appellant;

Angel Guardian Home, respondent-

respondent, et al., respondent.

(Docket No. G-19141/00)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Appeal by Eleanor V. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County dated May 20, 2002. By decision and order of this court dated November 12, 2003, the appellant's application for the assignment of counsel was denied. 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 appellant receives the transcripts of the minutes of the action in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received. In cases where there are no minutes of action to be transcribed, the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding 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 Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or

(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or

(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or

(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and 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 shall not be dismissed.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk

The Case Manager assigned to this case is Ms. Vazquez. Please contact her at 718-722-6488 with any questions.




Go to Top.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4938

K/cf

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

DAVID S. RITTER

FRED T. SANTUCCI

MYRIAM J. ALTMAN

ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.

2003-03052

In the Matter of Robert Jay Waine,

an attorney and counselor-at-law.

DECISION & ORDER
VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION

Robert Jay Waine has voluntarily submitted an affidavit dated April 7, 2003, wherein he, an attorney in good standing, resigns from the New York State Bar. Mr. Waine was admitted to the Bar in the State of New York at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on September 26, 1990. He is presently an attorney in good standing in the State of New York and there are no complaints or charges of professional misconduct pending against him. Mr. Waine presently resides in Pennsylvania, does not intend to return to New York to practice law, and, under these circumstances, does not wish to pay the biennial registration fee.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the resignation, it is

ORDERED that the voluntary resignation of Robert Jay Waine, an attorney in good standing, is accepted and directed to be filed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the name of Robert Jay Waine is removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, without prejudice to an application for reinstatement; and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, Robert Jay Waine, is commanded to desist and refrain from (l) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another in the State of New York, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority in this State, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto in this State, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York.

PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, SANTUCCI, ALTMAN and FLORIO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4952

M/mv

2002-04229

The People, etc., respondent,

v Manuel Alvarenga, appellant.

(Ind. No. 1447/01)

ORDER ON APPLICATION

Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 12, 2002.

ORDERED that the application is granted and 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 25, 2003, and the appellant's brief is accepted for filing, and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent's brief shall be served and filed on or before January 26, 2004.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4879

F/

GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.

2003-03235

The People, etc., plaintiff,

v Tyrone James, defendant.

(Ind. No. 2339/95)

DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION

Application by the defendant, pursuant to CPL 450.15 and 460.15 for a certificate granting leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 24, 2003, which has been referred to me for determination.

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

ORDERED that the application is denied.

GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN

Associate Justice




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4711

K/sl

HOWARD MILLER, J.

2003-06901

The People, etc., respondent,

v Von Knowlden, a/k/a Salim Abdul-Malik,

appellant.

(Ind. No. 2864/98)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant for reargument of his prior motion pursuant to CPL 460.50 for a stay of execution of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 30, 2003, and to release the appellant on his own recognizance, or in the alternative, to fix reasonable bail, which motion was determined by me on October 2, 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.

HOWARD MILLER

Associate Justice




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4617

F/

HOWARD MILLER, J.

2003-07949

The People, etc., plaintiff,

v Malik Scott, defendant.

(Ind. No. 6346/98)

DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION

Application by the defendant, pursuant to CPL 450.15 and 460.15 for a certificate granting leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 30, 2003, which has been referred to me for determination.

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

ORDERED that the application is denied.

HOWARD MILLER

Associate Justice




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4954

C/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

HOWARD MILLER

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-09202, 2003-09203

The People, etc., plaintiff,

v Victor Soto, defendant.

(Ind. No. 11610/93)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by Andrea Hirsch, inter alia, to be assigned as counsel to prosecute an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 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 denied as academic, as the defendant's application pursuant to CPL 460.15 for a certificate granting leave to appeal from the order dated August 27, 2003, has been denied.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4878

F/

GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.

2003-03770

The People, etc., plaintiff,

v Dean Villante, defendant.

(Ind. No. 6929/91)

DECISION & ORDER ON APPLICATION

Application by the defendant, pursuant to CPL 450.15 and 460.15 for a certificate granting leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 9, 2003, which has been referred to me for determination.

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

ORDERED that the application is denied.

GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN

Associate Justice




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4958

O/sl

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P.

GLORIA GOLDSTEIN

DANIEL F. LUCIANO

SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.

2003-05502

The People, etc., respondent,

v Richard Walker, appellant.

(Ind. No. 290/01)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, dated April 14, 2003, as a poor person, and for the assignment of counsel.

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

ORDERED that the motion is denied without prejudice to filing a motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal (see CPL 460.30), and to renew his motion for poor person relief at that time.

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and TOWNES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk




Go to Top. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

M4945

O/sl

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P.

ANITA R. FLORIO

NANCY E. SMITH

HOWARD MILLER, JJ.

2002-06610

The People, etc., respondent,

v Amilcar Zelaya, appellant.

(Ind. No. 1019-00)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Motion by assigned counsel, in effect, to be relieved of an assignment to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered June 25, 2002.

On the court's own motion, it is

ORDERED that the appellant show cause before this court, at the courthouse, located at 45 Monroe Place, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201, on December 26, 2003, at 9:30 A.M., why an order should not be entered dismissing the appeal as abandoned (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[f]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the Clerk of this court or his designee is directed to serve a copy of this order to show cause upon the appellant at his last known place of residence or, if he is imprisoned, at the institution in which he is confined, and upon the attorney who last appeared for him, by ordinary mail pursuant to CPL 470.60(2); and it is further,

ORDERED that the motion to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk