| Maspeth Federal Savings and Loan Association v O'Connell |
| Motion No: 2022-01357 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2022 NY Slip Op 65352(U) |
| Decided on May 2, 2022 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M282719
MB/
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
LARA J. GENOVESI
WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
|
2022-01357 Maspeth Federal Savings and Loan Association, plaintiff-respondent, v Richard O'Connell, defendant-respondent, Citibank, N.A., appellant. (Index No. 714302/2020)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 15, 2022. Motion by the appellant, inter alia, in effect, to stay enforcement of the order and to direct Law Offices of Perry Ian Tischler, P.C., as counsel for the defendant-respondent, to hold the subject surplus funds it received from the Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York pertaining to this matter in its attorney escrow account, pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to direct Law Offices of Perry Ian Tischler, P.C., as counsel for the defendant-respondent, to hold the subject surplus funds it received from the Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York pertaining to this matter in its attorney escrow account is granted, and Law Offices of Perry Ian Tischler, P.C., as counsel for the defendant-respondent, shall continue to hold in escrow the surplus funds that it received from the Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York pertaining to this matter, pending hearing and determination of the appeal, on condition that the appeal is perfected on or before June 1, 2022; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before June 1, 2022, the Court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, without further notice, or the defendant-respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days notice; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.
CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, GENOVESI and FORD, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court