This Amended Decision and Order is issued to change the adjournment date contained in the prior Decision and Order dated March 17, 2016.The following papers, numbered 1 to 3, were considered in connection with the Notice of Motion for Renewal and Reargument filed by Respondents for reargument and/or reconsideration and renewal of the Respondent’s prior motion pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221 for the Court’s failure to address the issue of cancelling the Notice of Pendency, cancelling the Notice of Pendency pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules §6514, and related relief; and were also considered in connection with the Affirmation in Opposition filed by Respondents seeking Respondent’s Motion to Reargue be denied in its entirety, and in the alternative, that Respondent’s Motion to Cancel the Notices of Pendency be denied in its entirety, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper:PAPERS NUMBEREDNOTICE OF MOTION/AFFIRMATION OF BARRY KANTROWITZ, ESQ DATED JANUARY 13, 2016/EXHIBITS (A-G) 1AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO REARGUE OF REBECCA A. CRANCE, ESQ DATED FEBRUARY 16, 2016 2REPLY AFFIRMATION OF DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ DATED FEBRUARY 17, 2016/EXHIBITS (A-B) 3For the Judicial Dissolution of AKW Holding, LLC, Pursuant to 9702 of the New York Limited Liability Company LawAMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
*1 Upon a careful and detailed review of the foregoing papers, the Court now rules as follows:Petitioners’ commenced this action seeking judicial dissolution and appointment of a Receiver (with related relief) with the filing of the Verified Petition and supporting papers through the NYSCEF system on May 7, 2015 and a Notice of Pendency dated May 7, 2015.On July 13, 2015, Respondents filed a motion seeking dismissal, or alternatively, an Order staying the action until the arbitration pending between the parties is completed. Petitioner opposed that motion and Respondents replied. On January 4, 2016 this Court issued a Decision and Order on the Respondent’s motion. The Decision and Order were served with a Notice of Entry dated January 7, 2016.On January 15, 2016, Respondents filed a Notice of Motion for “Renewal and Reargument” arguing that the Court should grant leave to reargue the prior motion by Plaintiff which resulted in the Decision and Order dated January 4, 2016 on the grounds that the Court did not address the Respondent’s fourth prayer for relief, cancellation of a Notice of Pendency and upon reargument cancelling the Notice of Pendency.1
