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

By: McCooe, J.P., Gangel-Jacob, Schoenfeld, J.J.

570675/05 West Harlem Renaissance Homes II -v- Harrison, Dorothy A.
It is Ordered that the motion seeking a stay pending the determination of the appeal is denied.
The warrant of eviction may be enforced after October 20, 2005, to afford respondent-appellant an opportunity to find alternate housing.

570674/05Acosta, Daniel, et al. -v- Rabinowitz, Ted M., et al.
It is Ordered that the motion to strike the Notice of Appeal as untimely is denied.
The appellants having timely filed the Notice of Appeal, but incorrectly served the Notice at a respondent's attorney's last address, now, pursuant to CPLR § 5520(a), the appellant's second service of the Notice of Appeal is deemed timely served nunc pro tunc. In the event the appeal is not perfected by the January 2006 term, respondents may move on five days' notice for an order dismissing the appeal for failure to diligently prosecute.

570673/05 1050 Tenants Corp. -v- Lapidus, Steven, et al.
It is Ordered that the motion for a stay is granted on condition that the appellants: 1- on or before October 5, 2005, tenders $31,381.40, along with the October use and occupancy at the rate set by the trial court, to the petitioner-landlord, without prejudice; 2- continue to pay for accruing use and occupancy to the petitioner on each subsequent rental due date; and 3- perfect the appeal by no later than the January 2006 term . In the event of appellants' failure to comply with the foregoing conditions, petitioner may move on five days' notice for an order vacating the stay. The cross-motion for various relief is denied, without prejudice.