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.


Supreme Court of the State of New York

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