MATTER of Blake Alexandra Weinberg, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 4877775) — Application by Blake Alexandra Weinberg, who was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on June 8, 2011, to change her name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law to Blake Weinberg Vogel.Upon the papers filed in support of the application, it isORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall change the applicant’s name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law from Blake Alexandra Weinberg to Blake Weinberg Vogel, effective immediately.SCHEINKMAN, J.P., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and ROMAN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Roman, JJ.MATTER of Kelly L. Hartnett, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 5298914) — Application by Kelly L. Hartnett, who was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on April 1, 2015, to change her name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law to Kelly Lynn Kleiner.Upon the papers filed in support of the application, it isORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall change the applicant’s name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law from Kelly L. Hartnett to Kelly Lynn Kleiner, effective immediately.SCHEINKMAN, J.P., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and ROMAN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Connolly, JJ.MATTER of Cristina Maria Bonuso, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 4618062) — Application by Cristina Maria Bonuso, who was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on January 14, 2009, to change her name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law to Cristina Maria Porter.Upon the papers filed in support of the application, it isORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall change the applicant’s name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law from Cristina Maria Bonuso to Cristina Maria Porter, effective immediately.SCHEINKMAN, J.P., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Connolly, JJ.MATTER of Justine Louise Pate, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 5072087) — Application by Justine Louise Pate, who was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on October 24, 2012, to change her name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law to Justine L. Bressler.Upon the papers filed in support of the application, it isORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall change the applicant’s name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law from Justine Louise Pate to Justine L. Bressler, effective immediately.SCHEINKMAN, J.P., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Miller, Duffy and Lasalle, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Rakim I. Paulin, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se to relieve counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered October 28, 2016, and for the assignment of new counsel.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Daryll Boyd Jones, a suspended attorney. — Motion by Daryll Boyd Jones for leave to renew and reargue his fourth motion for reinstatement, which was denied by decision and order on motion of this Court dated October 10, 2017. Mr. Jones was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department on July 26, 1993. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 29, 2007, a disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Jones was authorized, and the issues raised were referred to the Honorable Thomas R. Sullivan, as Special Referee, to hear and report. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 1, 2008, Mr. Jones was suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years based on 11 charges of professional misconduct. Mr. Jones’s first three motions for reinstatement were denied by decisions and orders on motion of this Court dated December 23, 2013, April 6, 2015, and February 19, 2016, respectively.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Roman, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., plf, v. Johnathan Johnson, def — 2940/88, 2941/88) — Motion by the defendant for leave to appeal to this Court from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 4, 2017, and for poor person relief.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for leave to appeal is denied (see CPL 450.10, 450.15); and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied as academic.RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Roman, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. Ronald Ackridge, pet, v. Robert Langley, etc., res — Application by the petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus and for poor person relief.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the application which is for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022(b) is waived, and that branch of the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the application which is for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.MATTER of Fernando Seoane, respondent- ap, v. Martha Nunez, appellant-res, Juan Nunez, res — V-13206-15; O-22682-14) — Appeal by Martha Nunez, and cross appeal by Fernando Seoane, from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated February 16, 2018. Pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it isORDERED that Martha Nunez shall perfect the appeal in the above-entitled proceedings within 60 days after the receipt of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and shall notify this Court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, if there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this ; and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this , Martha Nunez 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 and cross appeal; or(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation stating 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 she 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 Martha Nunez, stating either that she qualified for assigned counsel upon application to the Family Court and that her financial status has not changed since that time, or that she had retained counsel or appeared pro se in the Family Court, and listing her assets and income; or(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,ORDERED that if none of the actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above has been taken within 30 days of the date of this , the Clerk of this Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal and cross appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.MATTER of Fernando Seoane, respondent- ap, v. Martha Nunez, appellant-res, Juan Nunez, res — V-13206-15; O-22682-14) — Appeal by Martha Nunez, and cross appeal by Fernando Seoane, from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated February 16, 2018. Pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it isORDERED that Fernando Seoane shall perfect the cross appeal in the above-entitled proceedings within 60 days after the receipt of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and shall notify this Court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, if there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this ; and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this , Fernando Seoane 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 and cross appeal; or(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation stating 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 he is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the cross appeal, a motion in this Court for leave to prosecute the cross 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 Fernando Seoane, stating either that he qualified for assigned counsel upon application to the Family Court and that his financial status has not changed since that time, or that he had retained counsel or appeared pro se in the Family Court, and listing his assets and income; or(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the cross appeal; and it is further,ORDERED that if none of the actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above has been taken within 30 days of the date of this , the Clerk of this Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal and cross appeal to show cause why the cross appeal should or should not be dismissed.MATTER of Jaire C. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Lucinda J. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Jekiah C. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Lucinda J. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 2) — Appeal by Lucinda J. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated March 7, 2018. Pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it isORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceedings shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the respondent-appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the respondent-appellant shall notify this Court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, if there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this ; and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this , the respondent-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 stating 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 respondent-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 respondent-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 actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above has been taken within 30 days of the date of this , the Clerk of this Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.By Dillon, J.P.; Chambers, Maltese and Barros, JJ.MATTER of Tatyana Lancaster, res, v. Simon Mogilevsky, ap — Appeal by Simon Mogilevsky from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated March 6, 2018.On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from a nondispositional order in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, part 3 (see Family Ct Act §1112), and leave to appeal has not been granted.DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Chambers, Maltese and Barros, JJ.John Sagaria, ap, v. Cynthia Sagaria, res — Appeal by John Sagaria from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated January 23, 2018.On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies as of right from an order that is not the result of a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701), and leave to appeal has not been granted.DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Louis J. Torres, res, v. Yilda Gutierrez-Ulla, ap — Appeal by Yilda Gutierrez-Ulla from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated February 15, 2018.On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511).SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Chambers, Maltese and Barros, JJ.MATTER of Tracey-Ann Codrington, res, v. Darryl Neal, ap — Appeal by Darryl Neal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated March 7, 2017. By letter dated March 12, 2018, former assigned counsel advised the Court that Darryl Neal had died, and provided a copy of the death certificate which stated that he had died on November 8, 2017.Now, on the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the parties are 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 proceeding on the ground that the appeal has been rendered academic by the death of Darryl Neal (see Matter of Charles C. E., 129 AD3d 721), by each filing an affirmation or affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this Court and serving one copy of the same on each other on or before April 17, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, or her designee, is directed to serve a copy of this order to show cause upon the parties, and upon the former assigned counsel for Darryl Neal, by regular mail.DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Lisa Pina, ap, v. Ronald Pina, res — Appeal by Lisa Pina from a decision of the Family Court, Queens County, dated June 5, 2017.On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr. Co., 100 AD2d 509).SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Balkin, Roman and Christopher, JJ.Russell Carbone, ap, v. US Bank National Association, etc., res — Appeal by Russell Carbone from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 19, 2015, which was determined by a decision and order of this Court dated December 13, 2017. In the decision and order dated December 13, 2017, the parties were directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing such sanctions and/or costs, if any, including appellate counsel fees, against Russell Carbone pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) as this Court may deem appropriate.Now, upon the Court’s own motion and upon the papers filed in response to the decision and order dated December 13, 2017, it isORDERED that Russell Carbone is directed to pay a sanction in the sum of $2,500 and shall deposit the sum of $2,500 with the Clerk of this Court for transmittal to the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.3), within 20 days after service of a copy of this decision and order on motion upon him; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, shall enter judgment accordingly (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.2); and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, or her designee, shall serve a copy of this decision and order on motion upon the parties by regular mail.In affirming the order on appeal we noted that “[h]ere, as in Carbone v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., a case involving the same plaintiff and almost identical facts, by submitting the judgment of foreclosure and sale and other documents from the prior foreclosure action, the Bank established that it had a defense founded upon documentary evidence.” Thus, we stated that “since the plaintiff has raised arguments on this appeal that appear to be “completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][1]), the appeal may be frivolous.” After considering the papers submitted by the parties, we conclude that the conduct of Russell Carbone in pursuing the instant appeal was completely without merit in law or fact and unsupported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law (see Rules of Chief Administrator of Courts [22 NYCRR] §130-1.1[c]; Tornheim v. Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 73 AD3d 749; Weinstock v. Weinstock, 253 AD2d 873, 874, cert denied 526 US 1088; Palmieri v. Thomas, 29 AD3d 658, 659). Accordingly, we determine that a sanction in the amount set forth above is warranted.RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, ROMAN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Roman, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.Michael A. Walsh, res, v. Ronald Knudsen ap — Motion by the appellants Ronald Knudsen and John Whalen, inter alia, to consolidate appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 7, 2017, and December 13, 2017, respectivelyUpon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to consolidate the appeals is granted and the parties shall file 10 copies of the record or appendix on the appeals and their respective briefs; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied as academic.RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Roman, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.Teresa Hennelly, ap, v. Retained Realty, Inc. res — Motion by Andrew D. Brodnick for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant on an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 26, 2017, and to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in relation or opposition thereto, it isORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr. Co., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is denied as academic.RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Chambers, Maltese and Barros, JJ.MATTER of Orlando F. Huari, res, v. Marlin Hernandez, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to prosecute an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated September 14, 2017, as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied, with leave to renew on or before April 27, 2018, upon proper papers, including the appellant’s affidavit setting forth the appellant’s full financial situation including all assets, both real and personal, as well as any and all sources of income and expenses, and whether the appellant was represented by retained counsel or assigned counsel in the Family Court, and if retained, the amount and source of counsel fees paid to retained counsel; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), 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, if there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this decision and order on motion; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), on or before April 27, 2018, 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 proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation stating 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, as set forth above; or(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,ORDERED that if none of the actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5), above, has been taken on or before on or before April 27, 2018, the Clerk of this Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Roman, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.Citimortgage, res, v. Marie Carmel Etienne, ap, et al., def — Motion by Marie Carmel Etienne to amend a notice of appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 29, 2017, to reflect that she is the proper party appellant.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted (see CPLR 2001).RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Chambers, Maltese and Barros, JJ.John P. Pedranghelu, etc., ap, v. Edward H. Oruci res, et al., def — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 31, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 26, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Miller, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.MATTER of Hannah Zarzar, pet, v. NYS Office of Children and Family Services res — Motion by the petitioner to enlarge the time to perfect a proceeding transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 4, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the petitioner’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 26, 2018, and the record or appendix and the petitioner’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., MILLER, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Miller, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Damian Gibbs, ap, v. New York City Transit Authority res — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 12, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 26, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., MILLER, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Miller, Duffy and Lasalle, JJ.MATTER of Government Employees Insurance Company, pet-res, v. Keisha Williams appellants; Jeffrey McRae res — Motion by the appellants to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 29, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the appellants’ time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 26, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Miller, Duffy and Lasalle, JJ.Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, etc., res, v. Ann Reed, ap, et al, def — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 30, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 26, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Miller, Duffy and Lasalle, JJ.Antonio Ariza, ap, v. The Number One Star Management Corp. res — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 20, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 26, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Roman, Barros and Christopher, JJ.MATTER of Thomas R. K. (Anonymous), res, v. Tamara S. K. (Anonymous), ap — O-2222-16) — Motion by the attorney for the children to direct that all papers filed in connection with an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, dated October 6, 2017, be marked and to make the caption on the appeal anonymous.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to direct that all papers filed in connection with the appeal be marked is denied as unnecessary (Family Court Act §166); and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to make the caption on the appeal anonymous is granted and the caption is amended accordingly.CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Miller, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Aspen Shackleton III, LLC, res, v. Marlon Gordon def, Board of Directors of Heron Pond Homeowners Association, ap — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated April 5, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 18, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., MILLER, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Homevest, Inc., ap, v. Venera Kaneev, as administrator of the estate of Roustam Kaneeva res — Application by Venera Kaneeva, on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 5, 2017, to substitute Venera Kaneeva, as administrator of the estate of Roustam Kaneev, for the deceased respondent Roustam Kaneev, and to amend the caption accordingly.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, Venera Kaneeva, as administrator of the estate of Roustam Kaneev, is substituted for the deceased respondent Roustam Kaneev, and the caption is amended accordingly.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Cohen, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc., res, v. Gary Gatti, etc., ap, et al., def — Motion by the respondent to dismiss appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, both dated March 9, 2017, for failure to timely perfect.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Cohen, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.PEOPLE, res, v. Tyrone Howard, ap — Appeal by Tyrone Howard from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 27, 2003. By order to show cause dated January 18, 2018, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had abandoned the appeal.Now, upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Cohen, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Nilly Ben-Efraim, ap, v. Harry Demiris, etc., res — Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 19, 2017, on the ground that it has been rendered academic or, in the alternative, to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal is held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is granted, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until April 27, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Miller, Duffy and Lasalle, JJ.Graeme A. Chambers , res, v. Mortgage Enterprise, Ltd. ap — Motion by the respondent for leave to serve and file a supplemental record containing certain material on appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 19, 2017, and a judgment of the same court entered May 23, 2017, to correct the record, to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief, and to enlarge the appellants’ time to serve and file a reply brief.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for leave to serve and file a supplemental record is granted, and on or before April 4, 2018, the respondent shall serve and file a supplemental record containing the affirmation in opposition to the motion which was determined by the order entered April 19, 2017, with annexed exhibits; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to correct the record is granted to the extent that on or before April 4, 2018, the appellant shall remove the following trial exhibits from the copies of the record filed with the Clerk of the Court and replace those trial exhibits with trial exhibits in the form in which they were before the Supreme Court: Plaintiff’s Exhibit Nos. 7, 15, 19, 24, 39, and 40 and Defendants’ Trial Exhibit Nos. C, D1, D2, E, F, and I; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is granted, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until May 4, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is denied as premature; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.LEVENTHAL, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Miller, Duffy and Lasalle, JJ.Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc., res, v. Valeriy Kolmykov, appellant def — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a decision and order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated December 7, 2016. By order to show cause dated February 5, 2018, the parties were directed to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed on the ground that no appeal lies from a decision and no appeal lies from an order that was not the result of a motion made on notice and leave to appeal had not been granted, and the application was held in abeyance in the interim.Now, upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see CPLR 5701; Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr. Co., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,ORDERED that the application is denied as academic.LEVENTHAL, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Miller, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.MATTER of Vincent Ballschmieder, deceased. Charles J. Ballschmieder, petitioner-res, Jeffrey Ballschmieder objectants-ap — (File No. 438/12) — Motion by Profeta & Eisenstein, in effect, for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant Jeffrey Ballschmieder on an appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Richmond County, dated April 11, 2016. Separate motion by the petitioner-respondent to dismiss the appeal insofar as taken by the appellant Jeffrey Ballschmieder.Upon the papers filed in support of the motions and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion by Profeta & Eisenstein is granted, and on or before April 11, 2018, Profeta & Eisenstein shall serve the appellant Jeffrey Ballschmieder by one of the methods specified in CPLR 2103(c), with a copy of this decision and order on motion and shall file proof of such service with the Clerk of this Court; and it is further,ORDERED that no further proceedings shall be taken against the appellant Jeffrey Ballschmieder without leave of the Court, until the expiration of 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order on motion; and it is further,ORDERED that on or before May 14, 2018, the appellant Jeffrey Ballschmieder shall advise this Court, in writing whether he has retained counsel, and provide a notice of appearance by retained counsel, or proceeding pro se, and whether or not he is adopting the brief filed by Profeta & Eisenstein on his behalf; and it is further,ORDERED that motion by the petitioner-respondent is denied without prejudice to renew if the appellant Jeffrey Ballschmieder fails to comply with the foregoing paragraph.LEVENTHAL, J.P., MILLER, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Chambers, Maltese and Barros, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Luis Gonzalez, ap — Appeal by Luis Gonzalez from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 20, 2017. By order to show cause dated February 6, 2018, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why the appeal should not be dismissed on the ground that the order dated July 20, 2017, was neither appealable as of right nor by permission. Application by the appellant to extend his time to make an application pursuant to CPL 450.15 and 460.15 for a certificate granting leave to appeal to this Court from the order dated July 20, 2017.Now, upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed (see CPL 450.10, 450.20); and it is further,ORDERED that the application is granted and the appellant’s time to make an application pursuant to CPL 450.15 and 460.15 for a certificate granting leave to appeal to this Court from the order dated July 20, 2017, is extended until April 30, 2018.DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.Reshat Hassan, Jr., res, v. Health Quest Systems, Inc. ap, et al., def — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 16, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Byron Lassin, respondent- ap, v. Thomas Krumpter, etc. appellants-res — Application to withdraw an appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 17, 2016.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties dated March 20, 2018; it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal and cross appeal are deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Roth & Roth, LLP, res-ap, v. Thomas C. Krumpter, etc. appellants- res — Application to withdraw an appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 5, 2015.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties dated March 20, 2018; it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal and cross appeal are deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.Mary Louise Portanova, etc., res, v. Alexander Falkovsky def, Reisa F. Ullman, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 8, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Dillon, J.P.; Chambers, Maltese and Barros, JJ.MATTER of Wayne R. Rose, res, v. Cristina Simon, ap — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Cristina Simon, ap, v. Wayne R. Rose, res — (Proceeding No. 2) — Motion by the respondent for leave to serve and file a brief responding to the factual allegations in the brief filed by the attorney for the child on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated May 19, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Chambers, Maltese and Barros, JJ.D. S., etc. res, v. Mariano Poliseno, etc. ap, et al., def — Motion by the respondents to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated November 7, 2016, and June 19, 2017, respectively.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the respondents’ time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until April 27, 2018, and the respondents’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Chambers, Maltese and Barros, JJ.MATTER of Elizabeth N. Moore, etc., deceased. Michele Moore, petitioner-appellant; Frank Moore III, res-res — (File No. 340/07) — Motion by the petitioner-appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, dated March 31, 2017, and, in effect, to vacate a determination of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, which directed her to make any further motions in that court by order to show cause.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal is granted, the petitioner-appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until May 14, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the petitioner-appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Alla Dudnik ap, v. 1055 Hylan Offices, LLC, res — Appeal by Alla Dudnik and Yevgeniy Dudnik from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated January 27, 2017.On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated upon entry of a judgment in the above-entitled action on March 27, 2017 (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241).SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., res, v. Stephanie Heaphy, a/k/a Stephanie Orlando Heaphy ap, et al., def — Application to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 12, 2016.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated March 21, 2018, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Cohen, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Ana Ospina-Cherner, res, v. Daniel Cherner, ap — Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 29, 2016, for failure to comply with a decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 4, 2017, and on the ground that the appellant is improperly raising arguments for the first time on appeal, or, in the alternative, to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is granted, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until April 26, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied without prejudice to the respondent’s arguing in her brief that the appellant is improperly raising arguments for the first time on appeal.MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Cohen, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Bebi Z. Alli, ap, v. Bhojnarine Baijnath res — Motion by Romola O. Lucas for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 27, 2016. Separate motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion for leave to withdraw as counsel and the papers filed in relation thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the motion to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motions are granted; and it is further,ORDERED that on or before April 11, 2018, Romola O. Lucas shall serve the appellant by one of the methods specified in CPLR 2103(c), with a copy of this decision and order on motion and shall file proof of such service with the Clerk of this Court; and it is further,ORDERED that no further proceedings shall be taken against the appellant, without leave of the Court, until the expiration of 30 days after service upon the appellant of a copy of this decision and order on motion; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until June 11, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Roman, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Rickie M. Carter Jr., ap — Motion by the appellant pro se on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, rendered February 7, 2017, for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, and for the assignment of counsel.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied, with leave to renew upon proper papers, including the appellant’s affidavit setting forth (1) the appellant’s full financial situation including all assets, both real and personal, as well as any and all sources of income before conviction, (2) whether the appellant was represented by assigned counsel or retained counsel in the trial court and, if retained, the amount and source of counsel fees paid to retained counsel, and (3) whether the appellant was on bail before conviction, and, if so, the amount and source of the bail money, and if bail was the appellant’s own money, what happened to the same after conviction.RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Cohen, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.MATTER of Fernando M. Maldonado, ap, v. New York State Workers Compensation Board res — Motion by the appellant to waive payment of the filing fee and for free transcripts on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 7, 2017, and to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal is granted, and the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal by causing the original papers constituting the record on the appeal to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]), and by serving and filing a brief on the appeal is enlarged until April 26, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Cohen, Connolly and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Mark Drake, plf, v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, defendant third-party plaintiff-res, City of New York third-party def-ap — 2018-00879Mark Drake, plaintiff, v. Port Authority ofNew York and New Jersey, defendant third-partyplaintiff-respondent; City of New Yorkthird-party defendants-appellants.(Index No. 703816/14) Motion by the third-party defendants-appellants to enlarge the time to perfect appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 8, 2017, and December 1, 2017, respectively, and to consolidate the appeals.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeals is granted, and the time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until May 21, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to consolidate the appeals is denied as unnecessary as the appeals may be consolidated as of right (see 22 NYCRR 670.7[c][1]).MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Roman, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.MATTER of Naphtali A. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Winifred A. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Yahchannah A. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Winifred A. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 2)MATTER of Noah A. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Winifred A. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 3)MATTER of Samach A. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Winifred A. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 4)MATTER of Nathanael A. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Winifred A. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 5)MATTER of Asher A. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Winifred A. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 6) N-27273-15, N-27274-15, N-27275-15, N-27276-15) — Motion by the attorney for the child Samach A. to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on appeals by Winifred A. from three orders of the Family Court, Kings County, one dated January 23, 2017, and two dated March 20, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that motion is granted and the time for the attorney for the child Samach A. to serve and file a brief on the appeals is enlarged until April 16, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Sgroi, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.MATTER of Alan S. M. C. (Anonymous), ap — (Matter No. 1)MATTER of Diego A. M. C. (Anonymous), ap — (Matter No. 2) — Motion by the appellants for a preference in the calendaring of appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, both dated March 2, 2018, and to consolidate the appeals.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the appellants shall file 10 copies of their briefs on or before March 29, 2018, and the appeals are placed on the calendar for argument or submission on April 3, 2018.LEVENTHAL, J.P., SGROI, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Andrew Krivak, ap — 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, Putnam County, dated December 19, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged, and the brief submitted to the Clerk of the Court is accepted for filing and deemed timely served.
Order on Applicationreleased on:March 27, 2018
