| APYX Medical Corporation v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London |
| Motion No: 2020-06786 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2024 NY Slip Op 60821(U) |
| Decided on January 19, 2024 |
| 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
M293639
AFA/
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
JANICE A. TAYLOR
CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.
|
2020-06786 APYX Medical Corporation, etc., appellant- respondent, v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, etc., et al., respondents-appellants. (Index No. 619058/2019)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal and cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated July 24, 2020. Motion by the respondents-appellants, in effect, to enlarge the record to include an order of the same court dated August 5, 2021. Motion by the appellant-respondent to hold the appeal and cross-appeal in abeyance, or, in the alternative, in effect, to extend the time to serve and file a reply brief.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion by the appellant-respondent and the papers filed in relation thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the motion by the respondents-appellants and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion by the respondents-appellants is granted, and on or before February 20, 2024, the respondents-appellants shall serve and file a supplemental record containing the order dated August 5, 2021, via NYSCEF, if applicable, or, if NYSCEF is not mandated, serve the supplemental record and upload a digital copy of the supplemental record, with proof of service thereof, through the digital portal on this Court's website; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion by the appellant-respondent which is to hold the appeal in abeyance is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion by the appellant-respondent which is, in effect, to extend the time to serve and file a reply brief is denied as academic as the reply brief was timely served and filed.
DILLON, J.P., MALTESE, TAYLOR and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Acting Clerk of the Court