APPELLATE TERM, SUPREME COURT: FIRST DEPARTMENT MOTIONS
The following orders on motion were filed and entered on June 27, 2005

By: Suarez, P.J., Davis, Gangel-Jacob J.J.

570400/05 Silberman & Silberman, P.C. -v- First Reformed Episcopal Church, et al.
It is Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of staying all disclosure pending determination of the appeal on condition that appellant perfects for the October 2005 term. The filing deadline is August 10, 2005. In the event of appellant's failure to comply with the foregoing condition, respondent may move on five days' notice for an order vacating the stay.

570698/04428 East 66th St., LLC -v- Meirowitz, Spencer
It is Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting some of the petitioner-respondent's trial exhibits, specifically exhibits "A" through "O", annexed to the moving papers herein, to be deemed part of the record on appeal. In all other respects, the motion is denied. [Cal. No. 05-247]

570042/04People -v- Calderdon, Christopher
It is Ordered that the motion to permit duplicate original exhibits to be included in the Criminal Court file is denied, without prejudice to renew before the trial court, if so advised.

570396/05Seven Park Ave Corp -v- Queens Point, Inc
It is Ordered that the motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely is denied. The notice of entry indicated that the decision and judgment was entered on January 6, 2005, when it was in fact entered on January 11, 2005. The notice of entry must correctly state when and where the judgment appealed from was entered. The party seeking to limit the time of another to take an appeal must be held strictly to the rules of practice and failure to comply therewith may not be overlooked (see Nagin v Long Island Savings Bank 94 AD2d 710 [1983] ).In the event the appeal is not perfected by the November 2005 term, petitioner-respondent may move on five days' notice for an order dismissing the appeal for failure to diligently prosecute.