Johnson v Brentwood Teachers Association
Motion No: 2022-09184
Slip Opinion No: 2024 NY Slip Op 60933(U)
Decided on January 22, 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

M293689

AFA/

FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS

DEBORAH A. DOWLING

BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.

2022-09184

Kimberly Johnson, et al., respondents-appellants,

v Brentwood Teachers Association, et al.,

appellants-respondents, et al., defendants.

(Index No. 607773/2022)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Appeal and cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 20, 2022. Motion by the appellants-respondents to dismiss the cross-appeal for failure to timely perfect and to extend the time to serve and file a reply brief. Cross-motion by the respondents-appellants to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is without merit or, in the alternative, to extend the time to perfect the cross-appeal.

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

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the cross-appeal for failure to timely perfect is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to extend the time to serve and file a reply brief is granted, and on or before February 21, 2024, the appellants-respondents shall serve and file their reply brief via NYSCEF, if applicable, or if NYSCEF is not mandated, serve the reply brief and upload a digital copy of the reply brief, with proof of service thereof, through the digital portal on this Court's website; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the cross-motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is without merit is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of the cross-motion which is to extend the time to perfect the cross-appeal is denied as unnecessary as the cross-appeal has been timely perfected.

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHAMBERS, DOWLING and WARHIT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Acting Clerk of the Court