| 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. |
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