COLUMBIA CAPITAL CO., res, v. FRANK ROSEMBERG, APPELLANT def

COLUMBIA CAPITAL CO., res, v. FRANK ROSEMBERG, APPELLANT def — Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 7, 2012, on the ground that the record is inadequate and does not comply with the rules of the Court and the appellant's brief does not comply with the rules of the Court, or, in the alternative, to strike the record and the appellant's brief and direct the appellant to serve and file replacements, to enlarge the respondent's time to serve and file a brief, and to direct the appellant to file a statement specifying whether he is proceeding pro se or is represented by Joseph E. Ruyack III, and to impose a sanction upon Joseph E. Ruyack III. Separate motion by the appellant to stay the sale of the subject premises pending hearing and determination of the appeal. Separate motion by the respondent to dismiss the appeal and the motions on the ground that they have been rendered academic.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

COLUMBIA CAPITAL CO., res, v. FRANK ROSEMBERG, APPELLANT def — Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 7, 2012, on the ground that the record is inadequate and does not comply with the rules of the Court and the appellant’s brief does not comply with the rules of the Court, or, in the alternative, to strike the record and the appellant’s brief and direct the appellant to serve and file replacements, to enlarge the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief, and to direct the appellant to file a statement specifying whether he is proceeding pro se or is represented by Joseph E. Ruyack III, and to impose a sanction upon Joseph E. Ruyack III. Separate motion by the appellant to stay the sale of the subject premises pending hearing and determination of the appeal. Separate motion by the respondent to dismiss the appeal and the motions on the ground that they have been rendered academic.

Upon the papers filed in support of the respondent’s motion, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the record is inadequate and the papers filed in opposition thereto, upon the papers filed in support of the appellant’s motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal and the motions on the ground that they have been rendered academic and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is

COLUMBIA CAPITAL CO., res, v. FRANK ROSEMBERG, APPELLANT def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal