Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27061
J/sl
|
2004-10081 Lawrence O. Bennett, et al., appellants, v Dushani A. Genas, et al., respondents. (Index No. 1192/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 21, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellants' time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until July 11, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants' brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27049
Y/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
THOMAS A. ADAMS
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2005-00719 Venice Carnagie, plaintiff-respondent, v J.P. Phillips, Inc., appellant, Donald Sierng, a/k/a Donald Siering, defendant-respondent, (Index No. 14829/01)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant to stay the trial in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 3, 2004.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted and the trial in the above-entitled action is stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
SCHMIDT, J.P., ADAMS, KRAUSMAN and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27073
S/sl
|
2004-08617
City of New York, respondent, v Safeco Insurance Company of America, et al., appellants. (Index No. 44472/03)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 3, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until July 1, 2005, and the respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27068
S/sl
|
2005-00251
Mary Cochran, respondent, v NEC America, Inc., a/k/a NEC USA, Inc., appellant-respondent, We're Associates, Inc., respondent-appellant. (Index No. 14649/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant-respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 24, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant-respondent's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until August 22, 2005, and the joint record or joint appendix on appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][1]), and the appellant-respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent-appellant shall serve and file its answering brief, including its points of argument on the cross appeal, in accordance with the rules of this ocurt (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]).
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27070
S/sl
|
2002-06517
Rivka Dambrot, respondent-appellant, v REJ Long Beach, LLC, respondent, Ocean Pictures Corp., d/b/a Park Avenue Theater, appellant-respondent. (Index No. 27233/00)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 17, 2002.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until August 8, 2005, and the respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27067
S/sl
|
2005-00329
District Attorney of Richmond County, respondent, v Richard Fileccia, et al., appellants. (Index No. 8103/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated November 23, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellants' time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until August 22, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants' brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27057
A/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
THOMAS A. ADAMS
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2004-07436 Andrea Friedman, et al., appellants, v Stephen H. Marcus, etc., et al., respondents. (Index No. 7519/98)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellants to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 20, 2004.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellants' time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until July 22, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants' brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
SCHMIDT, J.P., ADAMS, KRAUSMAN and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27066
S/sl
|
2004-10686
Richard Goldstein, appellant, v Patricia Woods-Goldstein, respondent. (Index No. 30174/96)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 30, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until August 15, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27076
Y/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
THOMAS A. ADAMS
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2005-02839
Edward Herman, et al., respondents, v Jacqueline Haro, appellant, et al., defendant. (Index No. 22302/04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant, inter alia, to stay enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 27, 2005, pending hearing and determination of an appeal therefrom.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
SCHMIDT, J.P., ADAMS, KRAUSMAN and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27039
R/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
SONDRA MILLER
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2004-07635 Kay Foundation, etc., appellant, v S & F Towing Service of Staten Island, et al., respondents. (Index No. 12140/01)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated July 2, 2004, to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal. By order to show cause dated June 1, 2005, the parties or their attorneys were directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled action on the ground that the order dated July 2, 2004, is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a]), and the appellant has not sought leave to appeal to this court (see CPLR 5701[c]), and the appellant's motion to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and on the court's own motion, and upon the papers filed in response to the order to show cause, it is
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that the order dated July 2, 2004, is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a]), and the appellant has not sought leave to appeal to this court (see CPLR 5701[c]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant's motion to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal is denied as academic.
SCHMIDT, J.P., S. MILLER, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27082
J/sl
|
2005-00176
Piere Martel, et al., appellants, v Lisa M. Chupka, et al., respondents. (Index No. 18560/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered December 2, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellants' time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until August 22, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants' brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27074
S/sl
|
2004-09374
NYCTL 1998-1 Trust, etc., et al., respondents, v Aref Shahipour, et al., defendants, Max Melamed, appellant. (Index No. 10618/99)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 11, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until July 8, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be filed on or before that date; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondents shall serve and file their brief on or before August 8, 2005.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27081
J/sl
|
2004-09695
Yesenia Olmedo-Garcia, appellant, v Vivian Dobson, etc., et al., defendants, Khadiza Chowdury, respondent. (Index No. 5247/03)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 27, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until August 1, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27065
R/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
THOMAS A. ADAMS
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2004-09535 Angel Osorio, plaintiff-respondent, v Kenart Realty, Inc., et al., defendants, Madison 45 Company, defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant; American National Insurance Company, s/h/a American Alliance Insurance Company, third-party plaintiff-appellant, Tower Insurance Company, third-party defendants-respondents. (Index No. 47095/98)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Application by the appellants to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 15, 2004. By order to show cause dated April 25, 2005, the parties were directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled action on the ground that the appellants are not aggrieved by the order dated July 15, 2004, and the appellants' application to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim.
Upon the papers filed in support of the application, and on the court's own motion and upon the papers filed in response to the order to show cause, it is
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that the appellants are not aggrieved by the order (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the appellant's application to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal is denied as academic.
We note that to the extent that the appellants claim that the Supreme Court failed to decide certain branches of their motion, those issues are not properly before this court as those branches of the motion are pending and undecided (see Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536).
SCHMIDT, J.P., ADAMS, KRAUSMAN and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M26984
S/sl
|
2005-00633
David Pambianchi, appellant, v Jayne Goldberg, respondent. (Index No. 15375/98)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 23, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until October 4, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27028
R/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
SONDRA MILLER
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2004-08820 Sylvester Saunds, appellant, v Estate of Ernest Johnson, et al., respondents. (Index No. 535/03)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant (1), in effect, to reinstate an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 1, 2004, and to enlarge his time to perfect the appeal, and (2) to stay all proceedings, including any holdover proceedings to evict him from certain premises located at 368 Siegel Street, Westbury, New York, pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the decision and order on motion of this court dated February 7, 2005, is recalled and vacated, the appeal is reinstated, and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until July 28, 2005; and it is further,
ORDERED that all proceedings, including any holdover proceedings to evict the appellant from certain premises located at 368 Siegel Street, Westbury, N.Y. are stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal, on condition that (a) the appeal is perfected on or before July 28, 2005, (b) the appellant continues to provide the respondent My Three Sons Realty, Inc., an accounting of the rents paid to him by the tenants of the subject premises, (c) the appellant places one-half of the rents collected into escrow with Irving Singer, Esq, the appellant's counsel in the holdover proceedings pending in the First District Court, Nassau County, and (d) the appellant provides the respondent My Three Sons Realty, Inc., reasonable access to the subject premises on reasonable notice on a biweekly basis; and it is further,
ORDERED that in the event any of the foregoing conditions are not complied with, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, or the respondents may move to vacate the stay, on three days notice.
SCHMIDT, J.P., S. MILLER, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27072
S/sl
|
2004-04625
Henry Stojowski, appellant, v Peter D'sa, et al., respondents. (Index No. 19703/02)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 1, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's brief which was submitted to the Clerk of this court is accepted for filing.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27069
S/sl
|
2005-00996
Roger Watkins, appellant, v Village of Briarcliff Manor, et al., respondents. (Index No. 14600/01)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 13, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant's time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until September 12, 2005, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27034
M/nal
THOMAS A. ADAMS, J.P.
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN
STEPHEN G. CRANE
PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
|
2005-03530 In the Matter of Davon B. (Anonymous), appellant. (Docket No. E-22481-04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal by Davon B. from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated March 7, 2005. By order to show cause dated May 27, 2005, the parties or their attorneys were directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding for failure to comply with a scheduling order dated April 19, 2005, issued pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(a)(2).
Now on the court's own motion, and no papers having been the papers filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to comply with a scheduling order dated April 19, 2005, issued pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(a)(2).
ADAMS, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, CRANE and SKELOS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M26859
M/nal
|
2005-05694 In the Matter of Omar B. (Anonymous), appellant. (Docket No. E-1549/04)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Omar B. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 11, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes in the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27055
Y/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
THOMAS A. ADAMS
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2005-05619 In the Matter of Robert Cacase, petitioner, v Eileen Cacase, respondent. (Docket No. V-15004-04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by Eileen Cacase, inter alia, for leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, entered June 13, 2005, and to stay enforcement of the order pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for leave to appeal is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the appeal purportedly taken as of right from the order dated June 13, 2005, in the above-entitled action is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied as academic.
SCHMIDT, J.P., ADAMS, KRAUSMAN and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M26858
M/nal
|
2005-05697 In the Matter of Cecile Denise Clue, respondent, v Robert Sinckler, appellant. (Docket No. F-21443-03)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Robert Sinckler from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 10, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) if the appellant is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeal, a motion in this court for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101. Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit from the appellant, stating either that he or she qualified for assigned counsel upon application to the Family Court and that his or her financial status has not changed since that time, or that he or she had retained counsel or appeared pro se in the Family Court, and listing his or her assets and income; or
(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27075
Y/sl
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
THOMAS A. ADAMS
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2005-05688 In the Matter of Lorece Cobourne, respondent- appellant, v Naphtalie James, appellant-respondent. (Docket No. V-17323-01)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the appellant-respondent to stay enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 23, 2005, pending hearing and determination of an appeal and cross appeal therefrom.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
SCHMIDT, J.P., ADAMS, KRAUSMAN and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M26828
M/nal
|
2005-05601 In the Matter of Rick Enrico Dellagatta, appellant, v Belinda McGillicuddy, respondent. (Docket No. F-08597-04)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Rick Enrico Dellagatta from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated March 29, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes in the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27090
K/nal
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
HOWARD MILLER
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT
THOMAS A. ADAMS
GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
|
2005-01856
In the Matter of Kevin R. Gorry, a suspended attorney. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Kevin R. Gorry, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2141273)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent to stay enforcement of a decision and order on motion of this court dated June 3, 2005, which immediately suspended him from the practice of law, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f), upon his conviction of the serious crime of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree, a class A misdemeanor, in violation of Penal Law § 115.00; authorized the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against him; and referred the issues raised to the Honorable Lawrence J. Bracken, as Special Referee to hear and report. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on July 22, 1987.
Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and the papers submitted in response thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent that the effective date of the suspension is extended up to and including July 22, 2005, and the motion is otherwise denied.
PRUDENTI, P.J., H. MILLER, SCHMIDT, ADAMS and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27091
K/nal
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
ANITA R. FLORIO
HOWARD MILLER
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT
THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
|
2004-11064
In the Matter of Edward Katz, a suspended attorney. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Edward Katz, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 118371)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent to extend the effective date of the suspension imposed by decision and order on motion of this court dated May 9, 2005, which immediately suspended him from the practice of law as a result of his conviction of the serious crime of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree, in violation of Penal Law § 115.00, a class A misdemeanor; authorized the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against him; and referred the issues raised to the Honorable Edwin J. Loewy, as Special Referee to hear and report. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on February 25, 1976.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers submitted in response thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted and the effective date of the suspension is extended up to and including July 1, 2005.
PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M26865
M/nal
|
2005-05752 In the Matter of Victoria Lutz, respondent, v Bruce Goldstone, appellant. (Docket Nos. F-00115-00, F-00116-00)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Bruce Goldstone from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated May 13, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes in the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M26860
M/nal
|
2005-05709 In the Matter of Ashley M. (Anonymous), appellant. (Docket No. D-38165-04)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Ashley M. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated June 1, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes in the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27042
M/nal
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
SONDRA MILLER
WILLIAM A. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2005-01423 In the Matter of Dina Makhnovskaya, respondent, v Mikhail Nisenbaum, appellant. (Docket No. F-07391/03)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal by Mikhail Nisenbaum from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated January 19, 2005. By order to show cause dated May 26, 2005, the parties or their attorneys were directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding for failure to comply with a scheduling order dated April 19, 2005, issued pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(a)(2).
Now on the court's own motion, and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to comply with a scheduling order dated April 19, 2005, issued pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(a)(2).
SCHMIDT, J.P., S. MILLER, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M26827
M/nal
|
2005-05591 In the Matter of Alvin Neu, appellant, v Marcia Davidowitz, respondent. (Docket No. F-03183-03)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Alvin Neu from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated May 6, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes in the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27041
M/nal
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
SONDRA MILLER
WILLIAM A. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
|
2005-01089
In the Matter of Judy Nieves, respondent, v Raymond Nieves, appellant. (Docket No. O-00034-03)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal by Raymond Nieves from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 20, 2004. By order decision and order on motion dated April 14, 2005, the appellant was granted leave to renew a motion for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person upon papers establishing that he was entitled to that relief and indicating that he is interested in pursuing the appeal on or before May 16, 2005. The appellant has failed to do so. By order to show cause May 26, 2005, the parties or their attorneys were directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal.
Now, on the court's own motion, and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
SCHMIDT, J.P., S. MILLER, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M26826
M/nal
|
2005-05504, 2005-05505 In the Matter of Jonathan R. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Sheila T. (Anonymous), appellant; et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Nathaniel R. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Sheila T. (Anonymous), appellant; et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Kayla T. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Sheila T. (Anonymous), appellant; et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 3) In the Matter of Kayla T. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; Sheila T. (Anonymous), appellant; Mark T. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent. (Proceeding No. 4) (Docket Nos. N-4977-03, N-4978-03, N-7094-03, N-7095-03, N-4979-03, N-16255-03)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeals by Sheila T. from two orders of the Family Court, Suffolk County, both dated May 23, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeals in the above-entitled proceedings shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeals; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcripts have been received, and indicating the date received; or
(3) if the transcripts have not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that they have been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcripts are expected; or
(4) if the appellant is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeals, a motion in this court for leave to prosecute the appeals as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101. Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit from the appellant, stating either that he or she qualified for assigned counsel upon application to the Family Court and that his or her financial status has not changed since that time, or that he or she had retained counsel or appeared pro se in the Family Court, and listing his or her assets and income; or
(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeals; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeals to show cause why the appeals should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27063
M/nal
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P.
DANIEL F. LUCIANO
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO
ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.
|
2004-11002 In the Matter of Linda Recard, appellant, v Anthony Polite, respondent. (Docket No. F-06975/00)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal by Linda Recard from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated November 15, 2004. By order to show cause dated May 26, 2005, the parties or their attorneys were directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding for failure to comply with a scheduling order dated April 19, 2005, issued pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(a)(2).
Now on the court's own motion, and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to comply with a scheduling order dated April 19, 2005, issued pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(a)(2).
KRAUSMAN, J.P., LUCIANO, SPOLZINO and LIFSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M26830
M/nal
|
2005-05645, 2005-5646 In the Matter of Jose L. Rivera, appellant, v Dagnes Echavarria, respondent. (Docket Nos. V-13848-01, F-30555-04)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeals by Jose L. Rivera from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County, both dated April 4, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeals in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes in the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeals; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcripts have been received, and indicating the date received; or
(3) if the transcripts have not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that they have been ordered, the date thereof and the date by which the transcripts are expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeals; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeals to show cause why the appeals should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27044
M/nal
HOWARD MILLER, J.P.
BARRY A. COZIER
DAVID S. RITTER
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2005-01966
In the Matter of Nelson Rodriguez, appellant, v Zamarra Rodriguez, respondent. (Docket No. V-16328-04)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal by Nelson Rodriguez from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated December 20, 2004. By decision and order on motion of this court dated May 11, 2005, the appellant's time to comply with the scheduling order of this court dated March 14, 2005, was extended until June 10, 2005. The appellant has not complied with the scheduling order.
Now, on the court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that the above-entitled appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
H. MILLER, J.P., COZIER, RITTER and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27050
M/nal
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
THOMAS A. ADAMS
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2004-10685, 2004-10687
In the Matter of Mario Rosemond, respondent, v Melange Derice, appellant. (Docket No. V-3259/03)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeals by Melange Derice from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, both dated November 5, 2004. By decision and order on motion of this court dated April 12, 2005, the appellant was granted leave to renew a motion for leave to prosecute the appeals as a poor person on or before May 19, 2005. The appellant has failed to do so. By order to show cause dated June 2, 2005, the parties or their attorneys were directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeals.
Now, on the court's own motion, and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
SCHMIDT, J.P., ADAMS, KRAUSMAN and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M26829
M/nal
|
2005-05604 In the Matter of Rozita Roshodesh, respondent, v Faramarz Roshodesh, appellant. (Docket Nos. V-03784-02, V-03862-02)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Faramarz Roshodesh from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated May 9, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes in the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27062
J/sl
|
2004-08995 In the Matter of Surinder Sandhu, etc., respondent, v Mercy Medical Center, et al., appellants. (Index No. 12882/03)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 3, 2004.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until July 18, 2005, and the respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27060
M/nal
HOWARD MILLER, J.P.
BARRY A. COZIER
DAVID S. RITTER
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
|
2005-03183 In the Matter of Lance S. Silverman, appellant, v Toni M. Raeder, respondent. (Docket No. F-01323-96)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal by Lance S. Silverman from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated February 17, 2005. By order to show cause dated May 25, 2005, the parties or their attorneys were directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding for failure to comply with a scheduling order dated April 14, 2005, issued pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(a)(2).
Now on the court's own motion, and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to comply with a scheduling order dated April 14, 2005, issued pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.4(a)(2).
H. MILLER, J.P., COZIER, RITTER and FISHER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M26867
M/nal
|
2005-05861 In the Matter of Carol Steinhauser, appellant, v Jeffrey Haas, respondent. (Docket Nos. V-11476-04, V-11477-04, V-11478-04)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Carol Steinhauser from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated May 24, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) if the appellant is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeal, a motion in this court for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101. Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit from the appellant, stating either that he or she qualified for assigned counsel upon application to the Family Court and that his or her financial status has not changed since that time, or that he or she had retained counsel or appeared pro se in the Family Court, and listing his or her assets and income; or
(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M26862
M/nal
|
2005-05739 In the Matter of Barbara Stirt, appellant, v Glenn Reed, respondent. (Docket No. F-00897-03)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeal by Barbara Stirt from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated March 22, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes in the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or
(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or
(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27048
M/nal
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, J.P.
THOMAS A. ADAMS
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
|
2005-01085, 2005-01086, 2005-01154, 2005-01155, 2005-01156 In the Matter of Theresa Helen T. (Anonymous), a/k/a Theresa Helen D. (Anonymous), a/k/a Theresa T. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Debra D. T. (Anonymous), et al., appellants. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Christina Shannon T. (Anonymous), a/k/a Christina T. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Debra D. T. (Anonymous), et al., appellants. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Silvia Marie D. (Anonymous), a/k/a Silvia D. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Debra D. T. (Anonymous), et al., appellants. (Proceeding No. 3) In the Matter of Patricia D. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; Debra D. T. (Anonymous), et al., appellants. (Proceeding No. 4) (Docket Nos. B-11446/02, B-11448/02, B-11447/02, N-4878/96, N-4879/96, N-4880/96, N-4881/96)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
By decision and order on motion of this court dated April 7, 2005, the appellant Wayne T. was granted leave to renew a motion for leave to prosecute appeals in the above-entitled proceedings from three orders of the Family Court, Queens County dated May 31, 2004 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2005-01155), October 21, 2004 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2005-01156), and November 18, 2004 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2005-01085) , respectively, and an order dated November 30, 2004, issued in Proceeding No. 1, under Family Court Docket No. B-11446/02 (Appellate Division Docket No. 2005-01086) as a poor person on or before May 16, 2005. The appellant has failed to do so. By order to show cause dated June 13, 2005, the parties or their attorneys were directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeals of the appellant Wayne T.
Now, on the court's own motion, and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the appeals of the father, Wayne T., are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
SCHMIDT, J.P., ADAMS, KRAUSMAN and CRANE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M26868
M/nal
|
2005-05898, 2005-05899 In the Matter of Israel Valle, appellant, v Ventura Valle, respondent. (Docket Nos. O-08704-05, O-014214-02)
| SCHEDULING ORDER |
Appeals by Israel Valle from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, both dated May 13, 2005. Pursuant to § 670.4(a) of the Rules of this court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it is
ORDERED that the appeals in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, in cases where there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this scheduling order; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this scheduling order, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this court one of the following:
(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeals; or
(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcripts have been received, and indicating the date received; or
(3) if the transcripts have not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that they have been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcripts are expected; or
(4) if the appellant is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeals, a motion in this court for leave to prosecute the appeals as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101. Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit from the appellant, stating either that he or she qualified for assigned counsel upon application to the Family Court and that his or her financial status has not changed since that time, or that he or she had retained counsel or appeared pro se in the Family Court, and listing his or her assets and income; or
(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeals; and it is further,
ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this scheduling order, the Clerk of the court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeals to show cause why the appeals should or should not be dismissed.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
The Case Manager assigned to this case is Mr. Rose. Please contact him at 718-722-6487 with any questions.
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M27071
S/sl
|
2005-01722
The People, etc., appellant, v Robert Thomas, respondent. (Ind. No. 1735/04)
| ORDER ON APPLICATION |
Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 24, 2005.
ORDERED that the application is granted and the respondent's time to serve and file a brief is granted and the respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before July 25, 2005, respondent's brief must be served and filed on or before that date.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court