Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M310307

AFA/

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.

HELEN VOUTSINAS

CARL J. LANDICINO

LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.

2023-02572 In the Matter of Rai'May (Anonymous). Shelia D. (Anonymous), etc., petitioner-respondent; Egbert A. B. (Anonymous), etc., et al., respondents-appellants. (Docket No. A-17431-2016)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated February 15, 2023. By order to show cause dated October 1, 2025, the parties were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered relieving the counsel assigned by order on certification of this Court dated August 20, 2025, to perfect the appeal on behalf of the appellant Mirva P. on the ground that the attorney had been unable to contact the appellant, and dismissing the appeal by Mirva P. By order to show cause dated October 8, 2025, the parties were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered relieving the counsel assigned by order on certification of this Court dated August 20, 2025, to perfect the appeal on behalf of the appellant Egbert A. B. on the ground that the attorney had been unable to contact the appellant, and dismissing the appeal by Egbert A. B. Application by Nicholas Martin Berg, an attorney in good standing in the State of Illinois, to be admitted pro hac vice to represent the respondent on the appeal. Application by Yi Yang, an attorney in good standing in the State of California, to be admitted pro hac vice to represent the respondent on the appeal. Application by Stefan P. Schropp, an attorney in good standing in the State of Maryland, to be admitted pro hac vice to represent the respondent on the appeal. Application by Issac C. H. Sommers, an attorney in good standing in the State of Washington , D.C., to be admitted pro hac vice to represent the respondent on the appeal.

Now, upon the orders to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the papers submitted in support of the applications and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motions are granted, assigned counsel are relieved of their respective assignments, and the appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see 22 NYCRR 670.3[b][2]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the applications are denied as academic.

CHAMBERS, J.P., VOUTSINAS, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court