Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company, ap, v. Pine Bush Central School District res — (Index No. 6304/15)Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Elaine Slobod, J.), dated October 15, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action.ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action are denied.The plaintiff issued four consecutive Commercial General Liability (hereinafter CGL) and School District and Educators Legal Liability (hereinafter SDELL) primary policies, as well as CGL umbrella policies, to the defendant Pine Bush Central School District (hereinafter the School District) covering each academic year from July 1, 2008, to July 1, 2012. In an action entitled T.E. v. Pine Bush Central School Dist., commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (case number 12-CV-2303) (hereinafter the underlying action), five students alleged that the School District, the defendant Pine Bush Central School District Board of Education, the defendant Philip G. Steinberg, as the superintendent of the School District, the defendant Eric Winter, as the principal of Pine Bush Elementary School and the former assistant principal of Crispell Middle School, the defendant Steve Fisch, as the former principal of Pine Bush Elementary School, the defendant Robert Peters, as the former assistant principal of Crispell Middle School (hereinafter collectively the defendants), and other administrators violated their civil rights by being deliberately indifferent to anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination perpetrated by other students against them. In April 2012, Steinberg notified the plaintiff of the underlying action and the plaintiff advised the School District that it would pay the costs of the defense in the underlying action, but reserved its right to disclaim coverage upon further investigation of the allegations. The plaintiff eventually disclaimed any duty to indemnify the defendants in the underlying action. However, it continued to provide a defense through the resolution of the underlying action.During mediation, the parties to the underlying action agreed to settle that action for a total of $3,000,000 in compensatory damages and $1,480,000 in attorneys’ fees. A representative of the plaintiff attended the mediation. The plaintiff did not contribute toward the settlement.Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants alleging five causes of action. The first four causes of action sought a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to indemnify the defendants in the underlying action under the various policies issued by it to the School District. According to the allegations set forth in the complaint with respect to those causes of action, the plaintiffs in the underlying action, in their first amended complaint, based their claims against the defendants on intentional discriminatory conduct related to disparate treatment. The plaintiff in this action alleged, inter alia, that exclusions to the policies issued to the School District precluded coverage for claims seeking damages stemming from intentional discriminatory conduct, and that those claims did not fall under the definition of either a covered “occurrence” or “loss” as those terms were defined by the policies. The fifth cause of action sought a declaration that, in the event the plaintiff was found to have a duty to indemnify the defendants in the underlying action, the duty to indemnify would be limited to that part of the settlement that was found to be reasonable, since the plaintiff alleged that the settlement amount in the underlying action was excessive.The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court granted those branches of the motion which were to dismiss the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action, but denied that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the fifth cause of action. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action.A motion to dismiss on the basis of CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted “only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” (Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326; see 533 Park Ave. Realty, LLC v. Park Ave. Bldg. & Roofing Supplies, LLC, 156 AD3D 744, 746; 413 Throop, LLC v. Triumph, the Church of the New Age, 153 AD3d 1306, 1307). For evidence to be considered documentary, it “must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity” (Fontanetta v. John Doe 1, 73 AD3d 78, 86).On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d at 326; Leon v. Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87; Sposato v. Paboojian, 110 AD3d 979, 979; Constructamax, Inc. v. Dodge Chamberlin Luzine Weber, Assoc. Architects, LLP, 109 AD3d 574, 574). Where, as here, evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the motion is not converted into one for summary judgment, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one, and unless it has been shown that a material fact claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all, and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, dismissal should not eventuate (see Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275; Sposato v. Paboojian, 110 AD3d at 979; Constructamax, Inc. v. Dodge Chamberlin Luzine Weber, Assoc. Architects, LLP, 109 AD3d at 574-575).Here, in considering dismissal of the first four causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants, to wit, the insurance policies, does not provide a complete defense to the first four causes of action that it did not owe a duty to indemnify the defendants in the underlying action. Similarly, in considering dismissal of the first four causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the evidence annexed by the defendants to their motion did not show that the first through fourth causes of action were not valid causes of action.“Contracts of insurance, like other contracts, are to be construed according to the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties have used, and if they are clear and unambiguous the terms are to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and proper sense” (Johnson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 269 NY 401, 408; see Ralex Servs., Inc. v. Southwest Marine & Gen. Ins. Co., 155 AD3d 800, 802). Here, according to the language employed in the CGL coverage part of the plaintiff’s primary policies, coverage was provided for bodily injury caused by an “occurrence,” which was defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The SDELL coverage part of the policies afforded coverage for a “loss,” which excluded matters that may be deemed uninsurable under the law. Whether a loss is the result of an accident must be determined from the point of view of the insured (see Agoado Realty Corp. v. United Intl. Ins. Co., 95 NY2d 141, 145, citing Miller v. Continental Ins. Co., 40 NY2d 675, 677). Where the loss is unexpected, unusual, or unforeseen from the point of view of the insured, the loss constitutes an accident (see RJC Realty Holding Corp. v. Republic Franklin Ins. Co., 2 NY3d 158, 164-165). An act that is intentionally committed or performed may still be considered an accident within the meaning of an insurance policy, as long as the insured did not expect or intend the harm caused (see e.g. id. at 163-164; Miller v. Continental Ins. Co., 40 NY2d at 677).Whether an event or series of events qualifies as an accident is a question of fact (see McGroarty v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 36 NY2d 358, 363-364). ”[R]egardless of the initial intent or lack thereof as it relates to causation, or the period of time involved, if the resulting damage could be viewed as unintended by the fact finder the total situation could be found to constitute an accident” (id. at 364-365). ”The duty to defend is measured against the allegations of pleadings but the duty to pay is determined by the actual basis for the insured’s liability to a third person” (Servidone Constr. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 64 NY2d at 424).The allegations set forth in the first amended complaint filed in the underlying action averred that the defendants deliberately ignored complaints and their own observations of student-on-student anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination or responded in an unreasonable or inadequate manner to such complaints and observations. The plaintiffs in the underlying action further alleged that repeated and frequent incidents of anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination against them by other students, which were reported to school officials on numerous occasions and directly observed on other occasions by school personnel, gave rise to an inference that the defendants “intended for the harassment to occur” based upon the defendants’ practices, policies, and customs in dealing with reports and observations of anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination, that the defendants “intentionally discriminated” against the plaintiffs, that the defendants’ conduct “aided and incited” unlawful discrimination, and that the defendants’ acts and omissions were “undertaken recklessly and with the intent to engage in wrongful conduct.”While “it is not legally impossible to find accidental results flowing from intentional causes, i.e., that the resulting damage was unintended although the original act or acts leading to the damage were intentional” (McGroarty v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 36 NY2d at 364), the insurance policies do not conclusively establish that the plaintiff is obligated to indemnify the defendants in the underlying action, and the other evidence submitted by the defendants did not utterly refute the factual allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint. Whether the incidents set forth in the amended complaint in the underlying action were accidents present questions of fact which cannot be determined on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) (see McGroarty v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 36 NY2d at 363-364; 535 Park Ave. Realty, LLC v. Park Ave. Bldg. & Roofing Supplies, LLC, 156 AD3d 744, 748).Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action.HALL, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Priscilla Hall, J.P.; Austin, Sgroi and Christopher, JJ.Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company, res-ap, v. Pine Bush Central School District appellants-res — (Index No. 6304/15)Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Elaine Slobod, J.), dated February 3, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment which was to dismiss the fifth cause of action only to the extent of directing entry of a judgment declaring that the amount of the settlement in an underlying action entitled T.E. v. Pine Bush Central School Dist., commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under case number 12-CV-2203, was reasonable up to the sum of $1,846,000, and otherwise referred for trial the question of the reasonableness of the amount of the settlement that exceeds the sum of $1,846,000 in that action. The order, insofar as cross-appealed from, granted that branch of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment which was to dismiss the fifth cause of action to the extent of directing the entry of a judgment declaring that the amount of the settlement in the underlying action was reasonable up to the sum of $1,846,000.ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment which was to dismiss the fifth cause of action is denied as premature.In light of our determination on the companion appeal (see Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company v. Pine Bush Central School District, __ AD3d __ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2015-11565; decided herewith]), it is premature to render a determination on the reasonableness of the settlement amount tendered by the defendants in the underlying action entitled T.E. v. Pine Bush Central School Dist., commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under case number 12-CV-2203, until the issue of indemnification has been decided.HALL, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Priscilla Hall, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Stuart L. Weg, etc. res, et al., plf, v. Bruce D. Kaufman, etc., et al., ap — (Index No. 8875/11)In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBella, J.), entered January 20, 2015, which, upon the denial of the defendants’ motion, made at the close of the trial, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, and upon a jury verdict finding that a partnership agreement existed between the plaintiffs Stuart L. Weg and Stuart L. Weg, M.D., LLC, and the defendants, and that the defendants breached that agreement, is in favor of the plaintiffs Stuart L. Weg and Stuart L. Weg, M.D., LLC, and against the defendants in the principal sum of $1,627,091.ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.The defendant Bruce D. Kaufman started his anesthesiology practice in 1984, in Manhattan. During a period of 15 years, he expanded his practice to Queens, Garden City, Poughkeepsie, Albany, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. He created several corporate entities for his businesses, including the defendants Outpatient Management Physician Services, LLC (hereinafter OMPS), Outpatient Management Physician Services Essex, LLC (hereinafter OMPS Essex), Outpatient Management Services, LLC (hereinafter OMS), and Bruce D. Kaufman, M.D., P.C. (hereinafter the PC).In 2001, Kaufman hired the plaintiff Stuart L. Weg, an anesthesiologist, as an independent contractor. Their original independent contractor agreement (hereinafter the original IC agreement), dated November 28, 2001, stated that Weg was an independent contractor of the PC. The original IC agreement further stated: ”This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties with respect to its subject matter. This Agreement may not be changed, modified or amended, and no waiver of any provision or breach of this Agreement will be effective, unless such change, modification, amendment or waiver is in writing and signed by the party against which enforcement of any change, modification, amendment or waiver is sought.” Kaufman testified at the trial that he agreed to pay Weg the higher of $1,000 or 75 percent of gross receivables per day.A significant document in this dispute is an email dated January 20, 2005, from Kaufman to Weg, stating that as of January 1, 2004, “you are splitting with me.” The email further stated that Weg was owed money for the calendar year 2003. Weg claims that this email is evidence that he was a partner in Kaufman’s businesses.Weg formed his own company, the plaintiff Stuart L. Weg, M.D., LLC (hereinafter Weg’s LLC, and together with Weg, the plaintiffs), which entered into a new independent contractor agreement (hereinafter the new IC agreement) with the PC in 2007. The new IC agreement contained clauses stating that Weg’s LLC was an independent contractor, and that the new IC agreement could not be amended except in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement was sought.The plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that Weg was a partner in Kaufman’s businesses and entitled to 50 percent of the profits of those businesses. The action proceeded to trial before a jury.Weg testified at the trial that he did not have check-writing authority in the alleged partnership, and that only Kaufman had such authority. Weg acknowledged that he did not contribute any assets or capital to the partnership. Weg’s 1099 forms indicated that he received “nonemployee compensation,” not partnership income.Weg presented the testimony of accountant Henry Fuentes, who testified that the payments that were made to Weg and Kaufman were basically equal payments for the period of 2006 through 2009, and amounted to approximately $2.9 million for each of them. However, Fuentes acknowledged that the payments were exactly the same only “75 percent of the time.”At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, the defendants moved, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the ground that “there was no mutual assent and the contract documents speaks [sic] for themselves in that manner, that two independent contractor agreements were signed by the party to be charged, in this instance, Dr. Weg, both before and after the claimed partnership agreement took place.” The Supreme Court denied the motion. At the close of the trial, the defendants again moved for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint on the same ground, and the court again denied the motion. The jury found that there was a partnership agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and that the defendants breached that agreement. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $1,627,091 in damages.“A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 or 4404 may be granted only when the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusion reached by the jury upon the evidence presented at trial, and no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party” (Tapia v. Dattco, Inc., 32 AD3d 842, 844; see Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556; Jourbine v. Ma Yuk Fu, 67 AD3d 865, 866). In considering such a motion, “‘the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant’” (Hand v. Field, 15 AD3d 542, 543, quoting Szczerbiak v. Pilat, 90 NY2d at 556).The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion, made at the close of trial, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. The existence of a partnership agreement between Kaufman and the plaintiffs with respect to Kaufman’s businesses cannot be inferred from the evidence presented at the trial. The parties’ relationship was governed by written agreements. The 2005 email which makes reference to splitting income is not sufficient to draw such an inference. Although an email message can constitute a binding contract if it sets forth the material terms of the agreement, and contains an expression of mutual assent (see Forcelli v. Gelco Corp. (109 AD3d 244, 248), the email in question fails to set forth the material terms of a partnership agreement. There was no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which the jury could have concluded that there was such a partnership agreement in this case.Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion, made at the close of the trial, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint.HALL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.
Motion List released on:March 9, 2018By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Alan Ross, admitted as Arkady Dynin, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Alan Ross, res — (Attorney Registration No. 2687952) — Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts (1) to immediately suspend the respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3) and (5), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon his failure to comply with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct, (2) to provide notice to the respondent, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b), that he may be disbarred by the Court without further notice in the event that he fails to respond to or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months, and (3) to refer the issues raised to a Special Referee, to hear and report. Pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(6), the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts was authorized by an order to show cause of this Court dated October 23, 2017, to serve the respondent with the motion and any future papers in this matter, using substituted service. On October 23, 2017, the Grievance Committee served the motion upon the respondent, by email, and duly filed an affidavit of service with this Court. 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 19, 1995, under the name Arkady Dynin.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; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3) and (5), the respondent, Alan Ross, admitted as Arkady Dynin, is immediately suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pending further order of the Court; and it is further,ORDERED that the respondent, Alan Ross, admitted as Arkady Dynin, shall promptly comply with this Court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15); and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, during the period of suspension and until further order of this Court, the respondent, Alan Ross, admitted as Arkady Dynin, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,ORDERED that if the respondent, Alan Ross, admitted as Arkady Dynin, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f); and it is further,ORDERED that on the Court’s own motion the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts is directed to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this Court pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8 based upon the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the affirmation of Kathryn Donnelly Gur-Arie dated October 18, 2017; and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts shall serve a notice of petition and verified petition pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8(a)(1), upon the respondent, Alan Ross, admitted as Arkady Dynin, as authorized by the order to show cause of this Court dated October 23, 2017, using substituted service, file the notice of petition and verified petition, as well as proof of service, with this Court, and serve copies of the notice of petition and the verified petition upon the Special Referee, appointed herein; and it is further,ORDERED that the issues raised are referred to Roger Bennet Adler, Esq., c/o Roger Bennet Adler, P.C., 223 Broadway, Ste. 1800, New York, NY 10279, as Special Referee, to hear and report, with the hearing to be completed within 90 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, or as soon as practicable, and to submit a report, which contains his findings on the issues and charges, within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b), in the event the respondent, Alan Ross, admitted as Arkady Dynin, fails to respond to or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months of this decision and order on motion, he may be disbarred by the Court without further notice.We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based on his failure to comply with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts and the uncontroverted evidence that he misappropriated client settlement funds.On May 22, 2017, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional conduct against the respondent from Nadezda Evgach. According to the complaint, in August 2016, the respondent settled Ms. Evgach’s personal injury case for $125,000. Ms. Evgach claimed that she had not received her settlement funds, and that the respondent had stopped answering her phone calls and emails in May 2017. The Grievance Committee forwarded the Evgach complaint to the respondent by letter dated June 1, 2017, and requested his written response within 10 days of receipt.Michael S. Ross notified the Grievance Committee that he was representing the respondent in this matter, and he requested an extension, and was granted until July 5, 2017, to submit an answer to the Evgach complaint. On July 12, 2017, Mr. Ross advised the Grievance Committee that the respondent was sick and unable to sign the answer . The following day Mr. Ross advised the Grievance Committee that the respondent had left the country with no intention of returning, based upon conversations with two reliable sources. Stuart Gechlik, the respondent’s associate, confirmed this information to the Grievance Committee on July 17, 2017, and by letter dated July 18, 2017, Mr. Gechlik advised this Court that the respondent had disappeared and abandoned his law practice. In an email dated July 28, 2017, Mr. Ross notified the Grievance Committee that he was no longer representing the respondent.By decision and order on motion dated August 4, 2017, this Court, on its own motion, appointed an inventory attorney, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.21(a), to, among other things, take custody of and inventory the respondent’s files, and to take such action as is deemed proper and advisable to protect the interests of the clients.Thereafter, the Grievance Committee made a second request for the respondent’s answer to the Evgach complaint by letter dated August 17, 2017, sent by regular and certified mail return receipt requested to the home address given by the respondent with his attorney registration, and his last known home address as provided by his paralegal. Although the letter sent to the respondent’s registered home address by certified mail was not returned, the letter sent by regular mail was returned by the U.S. Postal Service with a notation “Return to Sender Not Deliverable as Addressed Unable to Forward.” Also, the letter sent to the respondent’s last known home address by regular mail was not returned, while the letter sent by certified mail was returned to the Grievance Committee with a notation”Return to Sender Unable to Forward.” No response was received from the respondent and he has not contacted the Grievance Committee in any manner.On August 17, 2017, August 30, 2017, and September 26, 2017, staff counsel sent emails to the respondent’s known email addresses, namely, [email protected]; [email protected]; and [email protected], requesting him to call staff counsel and to provide his current address and telephone number. The respondent still failed to provide an answer or contact the Grievance Committee in any manner.Since receipt of the Evgach complaint, the Committee has received an additional 27 complaints of professional misconduct against the respondent, 21 alleging a failure to deliver settlement funds, and the remainder alleging neglect and abandonment of legal matters. Staff counsel states that the total amount of funds alleged to have been misappropriated by the respondent is approximately $700,000.Based on the foregoing, the Grievance Committee’s motion is granted, the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3) and (5), pending further order of this Court, and the respondent is notified pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) that in the event he hereafter fails to respond to or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months of the date of this decision and order on motion, the Court may, without further notice, disbar him. Additionally, the Grievance Committee is directed, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8, to serve the respondent with a notice of petition and verified petition and file the original notice of petition and petition with the Court, together with proof of service, and serve copies of the notice of petition and petition upon the Special Referee appointed herein, and the matter is referred the Special Referee, to hear and report.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Angelo R. v. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant-child. SCO Family Services, petitioner-res, Jose v. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant- res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Cynthia M. v. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant-child. SCO Family Services, petitioner-res, Jose v. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant- res — (Proceeding No. 2)MATTER of Jose v. (Anonymous), appellant- res, v. SCO Family Services res, Angelo R. v. (Anonymous) nonparty-ap — (Proceeding No. 3) V-20163/12) — Appeals by Jose V., and cross appeals by Angelo R. V. and Cynthia M. V., from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County, dated February 28, 2017, and March 20, 2017, respectively. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the appellant-respondent’s time to perfect the appeals by causing the original papers constituting the record on the appeals and cross appeals to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]) and by serving and filing the appellant’s brief on the appeals is enlarged until April 5, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.C., Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Zana C. (Anonymous). Administration for Children’s Services, petitioner- res, Dana F. (Anonymous), respondent- ap — Appeal by Dana F. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated January 2, 2018. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Gerard P. Nolan, Esq., dated February 25, 2018, it isORDERED that the appellant is granted leave to proceed as a poor person on the appeal, and the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:Daniel E. Lubetsky, Esq.155-03 Jamaica AvenueJamaica, NY 11432-3829718-264-8156and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel shall promptly attempt to contact the appellant at the address provided by this Court, and on or before March 23, 2018, shall notify the Case Manager assigned to the appeal, in writing, that he has done so and that either(1) the appellant is interested in prosecuting the appeal, or(2) the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, or that he has been unable to contact the appellant, and wishes to be relieved of the assignment; and it is further,ORDERED that the appeal will be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the appellant, the respondent, and the attorney for the child, if any. The parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other (22 NYCRR 670.9[d][1][ii]; Family Ct Act §1116); and it is further,ORDERED that the stenographer(s) and/or the transcription service(s) is/are required promptly to make and certify two transcripts of the proceedings, if any, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (22 NYCRR 671.9); in the case of stenographers, both transcripts shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court, and the clerk of the Family Court shall furnish one of such certified transcripts to the appellant’s assigned counsel, without charge; in the case of transcription services, one transcript shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court and one transcript shall be delivered to the assigned counsel. Assigned counsel is directed to provide copies of said transcripts to all of the other parties to the appeal, including the attorney for the child, if any, when counsel serves the appellant’s brief upon those parties; and it is further,ORDERED that the assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with any or orders issued pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]); and it is further,ORDERED that upon a determination that the appellant is interested in proceeding with the appeal, the assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Brandon S. (Anonymous), ap — Westchester Department of Social Services, res — Appeal by Brandon S. from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated January 17, 2018. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of David J. Peck, Esq., dated February 9, 2018, it isORDERED that pursuant to Family Court Act §1120, the following named attorney is assigned as the attorney for the appellant on the appeal:William D. Eddy, Esq.One Barker Avenue, Suite 230White Plains, NY 10601914-949-0109and it is further,ORDERED that David J. Peck, Esq., is directed to turn over all papers in the proceeding to the new attorney for the appellant herein assigned; and it is further,ORDERED that the appeal will be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the attorney for the appellant and the respondent(s). The parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other (22 NYCRR 670.9[d][1][ii]; Family Ct Act §1116); and it is further,ORDERED that the stenographer(s) and/or the transcription service(s) is/are required promptly to make and certify two transcripts of the proceedings, if any, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (22 NYCRR 671.9); in the case of stenographers, both transcripts shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court, and the clerk of the Family Court shall furnish one of such certified transcripts to the attorney for the appellant, without charge; in the case of transcription services, one transcript shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court and one transcript shall be delivered to the attorney for the appellant. The attorney for the appellant is directed to provide copies of said transcripts to all of the other parties to the appeal, when the attorney for the appellant serves a brief upon those parties; and it is further,ORDERED that attorney for the appellant shall serve a copy of this order upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken; and it is further,ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected either within 60 days after the receipt by the attorney for the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the attorney for 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 ; and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this order, the attorney for 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 any Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; 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 this order has been served upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken, the date thereof, and the date by which the transcripts are 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 , 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.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Karma S. Q. v. (Anonymous). Edwin Gould Services for Children, etc., petitioners- res, Jonathan v. (Anonymous), respondent- ap — Appeal by Jonathan V. from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated January 3, 2018. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Lesley J. Lanoix, Esq., dated January 31, 2018, it isORDERED that the appellant is granted leave to proceed as a poor person on the appeal, and the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:Jill M. Zuccardy, Esq.225 Broadway, Suite 1515New York, NY 10007212-962-1192and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel shall promptly attempt to contact the appellant at the address provided by the Court, and on or before March 23, 2018, shall notify the Case Manager assigned to the appeal, in writing, that she has done so and that either(1) the appellant is interested in prosecuting the appeal, or(2) the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, or that she has been unable to contact the appellant, and wishes to be relieved of the assignment; and it is further,ORDERED that the appeal will be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the appellant, the respondent, and the attorney for the child, if any. The parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other (22 NYCRR 670.9[d][1][ii]; Family Ct Act §1116); and it is further,ORDERED that the stenographer(s) and/or the transcription service(s) is/are required promptly to make and certify two transcripts of the proceedings, if any, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (22 NYCRR 671.9); in the case of stenographers, both transcripts shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court, and the clerk of the Family Court shall furnish one of such certified transcripts to the appellant’s counsel, without charge; in the case of transcription services, one transcript shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court and one transcript shall be delivered to the assigned counsel. Assigned counsel is directed to provide copies of said transcripts to all of the other parties to the appeal, including the attorney for the child, if any, when counsel serves the appellant’s brief upon those parties; and it is further,ORDERED that the assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with any or orders issued pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]); and it is further,ORDERED that upon a determination that the appellant is interested in proceeding with the appeal, the assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Stephanie Dimas, res, v. Philippe C. Fanfan, ap — Appeal by Philippe C. Fanfan from three orders of the Family Court, Queens County, all dated January 17, 2018. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Susan Gerner, Esq., dated January 30, 2018, it isORDERED that the appellant is granted leave to proceed as a poor person on the appeal, and the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeals:Tennille Tatum-Evans, Esq.260 Convent Avenue, Suite 34New York, NY 10031347-645-6660and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel shall promptly attempt to contact the appellant at the address provided by the Court, and on or before March 23, 2018, shall notify the Case Manager assigned to the appeals, in writing, that she has done so and that either(1) the appellant is interested in prosecuting the appeals, or(2) the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeals, or that she has been unable to contact the appellant, and wishes to be relieved of the assignment; and it is further,ORDERED that the appeals will be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the appellant, the respondent, and the attorney for the child, if any. The parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other (22 NYCRR 670.9[d][1][ii]; Family Ct Act §1116); and it is further,ORDERED that the stenographer(s) and/or the transcription service(s) is/are required promptly to make and certify two transcripts of the proceedings, if any, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (22 NYCRR 671.9); in the case of stenographers, both transcripts shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court, and the clerk of the Family Court shall furnish one of such certified transcripts to the appellant’s counsel, without charge; in the case of transcription services, one transcript shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court and one transcript shall be delivered to the assigned counsel. Assigned counsel is directed to provide copies of said transcripts to all of the other parties to the appeals, including the attorney for the child, if any, when counsel serves the appellant’s brief upon those parties; and it is further,ORDERED that the assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeals expeditiously in accordance with any or orders issued pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]); and it is further,ORDERED that upon a determination that the appellant is interested in proceeding with the appeals, the assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the clerk of the court from which the appeals is taken.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Samira Mrsic, appellant-res, v. Kwak Yen Kwan, res-res — V-27961/09, V-27962/09) — Appeal by Samira Mrsic, and cross appeal by Kwak Yen Kwan, from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated December 9, 2016. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the time for the respondent-appellant to serve and file an answering brief, including the points of argument on the cross appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]), is enlarged until April 2, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Kyle C. (Anonymous), appellant child. Nassau County Department of Social Services, petitioner-res, Daniel C. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Ryan C. (Anonymous), appellant child. Nassau County Department of Social Services, petitioner-res, Daniel C. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 2) — Appeal by Kyle C. and Ryan C. from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated February 17, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the time for the respondent Nassau County Department of Social Services to serve and file a brief on the appeal is enlarged until April 5, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Jasiah T.-V. S. J. (Anonymous). Heart Share Human Services of New York, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, petitioner- appellant-res, Joshua W. (Anonymous), res-res, Shatesse J. (Anonymous), respondent-res-res — Appeal by Heart Share Human Services of New York, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, and cross appeal by Shatesse J., from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated June 5, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the time for the attorney for the child to serve and file a brief on the appeal and cross appeal is enlarged until April 20, 2018, and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Antoinette Gravagna, res, v. Joseph Gravagna, ap — Appeals by Joseph Gravagna from two orders of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (IDV Part), both dated January 16, 2018.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 appeals in the above-entitled action 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, 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 3, 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 by regular mail.BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.MATTER of Flor Graznow, ap, v. Scott Granzow, res — Appeal by Flor Graznow from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, dated October 6, 2017. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Adam Paltrowitz, Esq., dated December 12, 2017, it isORDERED that pursuant to Family Court Act §1120, the following named attorney is assigned as the attorney for the child on the appeal:Jessica Bacal, Esq.61 Smith AvenueMt. Kisco, NY 10549914-767-9290and it is further,ORDERED that Adam Paltrowitz, Esq. is directed to turn over all papers in the proceeding to the new attorney for the child herein assigned.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Bank of New York Mellon, res, v. Jean Robert Geffrard def, Emmanuel Roy ap — Motion by the appellants to stay all proceedings in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 17, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appeal insofar as taken by Emmanuel Roy is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order dated October 17, 2017, did not decide his motion, which remains pending and undecided (see Katz v. Katz, 68 AD2d 536, 544), and he is not aggrieved by the order (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is denied.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Cynthia Settles, ap, v. Onewest Bank, FSB respondents def — Motion by the appellant pro se on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered February 2, 2017, to waive compliance with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 670.10.2(f) regarding certification of the record and the supplemental record on appeal. Cross motion by the respondents for leave to serve and file a supplemental record, to direct the appellant to pay the costs of the supplemental record, and 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, and upon the papers filed in support of the cross motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branches of the cross motion which are for leave to serve and file a supplemental record and to direct the appellant to pay the costs of the supplemental record are granted to the extent that on or before April 9, 2018, the appellant shall serve and file a second supplemental record which contains the affidavit of Cynthia Settles dated April 18, 2016, as well as Exhibits B, H and I annexed to the affidaivit, and those branches of the cross motion are otherwise denied; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the cross motion which is to enlarge the respondents’ time to serve and file a brief is granted, the respondents’ time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until May 9, 2018, and the respondents’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion to waive certification is denied with leave to renew by a motion made simultaneously with the filing of the second supplemental record.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Thea Kelly, ap, v. Double Down NYC, LLC, etc., res — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, 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 the motion is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 9, 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., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS, and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.MATTER of Fotma Odetallah Musleh, res, v. 948 Myrtle Ave. Corp. ap — Motion by the appellants to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 28, 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 9, 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., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Vijay Williams, ap, v. St. Johns Episcopal Hospital def, Alex Delman, res — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 14, 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 3, 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., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Sophia Rushton, etc. ap, v. State of New York, res — (Claim No. 121887) — Motion by the appellants to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims dated April 10, 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 9, 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., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS, and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.MATTER of Leon DaSilva, etc., deceased. Brianna Costello petitioners-appellants; Maureen McDonald res-res — (File No. 1320/13) — Motion by the petitioners-appellants to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, dated April 28, 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 petitioners-appellants’ time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 9, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the petitioners-appellants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Aliyah T. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Jaivon T. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Adrianna H. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Jaivon T. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 2) — Appeals by Jaivon T. from three orders of the Family Court, Richmond County, one dated March 29, 2017, and two dated June 30, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeals by causing the original papers constituting the record on the appeals to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]) and by serving and filing the appellant’s brief on the appeals is enlarged until April 5, 2018, and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Joseph Butindari res, v. County of Nassau, ap — Application by the appellant for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 5, 2015.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 deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.Byron Nimocks, ap, v. Jonathan Ostrau, res — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 25, 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.Andrew Garcia, etc. ap, v. Incorporated Village of Freeport respondents def — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 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 Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Ruth Jacob Sowell, ap, v. Israel Gansburg, res — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 7, 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 9, 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., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.R. K., appellant-res, v. R. G., res-res — Appeal by R. K., and cross appeal by R. G., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 28, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the appellant-respondent’s time to perfect the appeal by causing the original papers constituting the record on the appeal and cross 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 the appellant-respondent’s brief on the appeal is enlarged until April 11, 2018.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Lisa M. Proietto, res, v. Peter Proietto, ap — Application by the appellant for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated December 28, 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 and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.U.S. Bank National Association, etc., res, v. Donovan Staines, ap, et al., def — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 7, 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 9, 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., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.MATTER of Jeffrey J. P. (Anonymous), Jr. Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Anna A. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Anthony M. (Anonymous), Jr. Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Anna A. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 2) — Appeal by Anna A. from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated October 25, 2016. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the time for the petitioner-respondent and the attorney for the children to serve and file their respective briefs on the appeal is enlarged until April 4, 2018.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Juana Isabel Felix, ap, v. Kenneth Wai Hom res — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 9, 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 9, 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., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.HSBC Bank USA, etc., ap, v. Mariame Kone, respondent def — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 27, 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 9, 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., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Capital One, N.A., etc., res, v. Farah Maleki Amid, ap, et al., def — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 3, 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 May 8, 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., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.Steven Ramos, ap, v. RCN Telecom Services of New York, LP, res — Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 14, 2017.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated March 2, 2018, it isORDERED that the appeal is marked withdrawn.MATTER of Ashley G. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-appellant; Eggar T. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Jason A. T. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-appellant; Eggar T. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent res — (Proceeding No. 2)MATTER of Sharman E. S. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-appellant; Eggar T. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent res — (Proceeding No. 3)MATTER of Amy G. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-appellant; Eggar T. (Anonymous), respondent-respondent res — (Proceeding No. 1) N-20951-16, N-20952-16) — Appeal by Administration for Children’s Services from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 9, 2017. The appellant’s brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court on March 5, 2018. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order, the briefs for the respondent and the attorney for the children in the above-entitled appeal shall be served and filed.Thomas Dunn res-ap, v. GGP Staten Island Mall, LLC appellants-res — Application by the respondent-appellant Empire Framing & Drywall, LLC, on an appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated June 30, 2017, to withdraw the cross appeal.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 cross appeal by the respondent-appellant Empire Framing & Drywall, LLC, is marked withdrawn.MATTER of Annetta Korszun, res, v. Matthew Kwas, ap — Appeal by Matthew Kwas from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated May 2, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that 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 the appellant’s brief on the appeal is enlarged until April 9, 2018.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.MATTER of Roman Santiago, pet, v. Michael Capra, etc. res — Motion by the petitioner pro se to enlarge the time to perfect a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which was transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 31, 2016, and for leave to proceed on the petition and the papers filed in the Supreme Court without the need to file briefs.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 proceeding is granted, and the petitioner’s time to perfect the proceeding by causing the original papers constituting the record 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 is enlarged until May 8, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Joan McGowan-Amandola ap, v. Federal Realty Investment Trust res — 2017-12313Joan McGowan-Amandola appellants,v Federal Realty Investment Trust, respondents.(Index No. 1874/10) Motion by the appellants to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 27, 2017, and to consolidate that appeal with an appeal from an order of the same court dated October 24, 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 branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal from the order dated March 27, 2017, is granted, and the time to perfect the appeal from the order dated March 27, 2017, is enlarged until April 9, 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]).LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Pennymac Corp., res, v. Danielle Liguori Bongiovanni, et al, def, Sebastian Bongiovanni, appellant; Allen Cappelli nonparty-res — 2017-11567Pennymac Corp., respondent, v. DanielleLiguori Bongiovanni, et al, defendants,Sebastian Bongiovanni, appellant; AllenCappelli nonparty-respondents.(Index No. 135011/16) Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated March 28, 2017, and to consolidate that appeal with an appeal from an order of the same court dated September 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 branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal from the order dated March 27, 2017, is granted, and the time to perfect the appeal from the order dated March 27, 2017, is enlarged until April 17, 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]).LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.MATTER of Shivaun Williams, ap, v. Cassandra Bryson, res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Cassandra Bryson, res, v. Shivaun Williams, ap — (Proceeding No. 2) V-8618-16) — Appeal by Shivaun Williams from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated August 18, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that 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 the appellant’s brief on the appeal is enlarged until April 4, 2018.MATTER of Flavio A. M. G. (Anonymous), ap, v. Gladis A. G. (Anonymous), res — Appeal by Flavio A. M. G. from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated September 29, 2017. The appellant’s brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court on March 5, 2018. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order, the brief for the respondent in the above-entitled appeal shall be served and filed.MATTER of Deanna E. R. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, petitioner-res, Latisha M. (Anonymous), res-res — Appeal by Latisha M. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated November 8, 2017. By order on certification of this Court dated March 1, 2018, the following attorney was assigned as counsel for the appellant on the appeal:Michael E. Lipson, Esq.366 North Broadway, Suite 410Jericho, NY 11753516-729-1701By letter dated March 5, 2018, the assigned counsel has informed this Court that the appellant wishes to proceed with the appeal. 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 proceeding shall be perfected either within 60 days after the receipt by the assigned counsel of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the assigned counsel 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 assigned counsel 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 any 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 received; or(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that the order on certification of this Court dated March 1, 2018, has been served upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken, 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 , 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.MATTER of Hannah T. R. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner- res, Soya R. (Anonymous), respondent- ap — Appeal by Soya R. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated December 6, 2017. By dated January 29, 2018, the respondent-appellant was directed to file one of the following in the office of the Clerk of the Court, within 30 days after the date of the :(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there were no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeal; or(2) if there were such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation stating that the transcript was received, and indicating the date that it was received; or(3) if the transcript was not received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it was ordered and paid for, the date thereof, and the date by which the transcript was expected; or(4) if the respondent-appellant was indigent and could not 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; or(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal.The appellant has failed to comply with the . Pursuant to §670.4(a)(5) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][5]), 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 for failure to comply with the dated January 29, 2018, 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 3, 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 by regular mail.By Mastro, J.P.; Chambers, Cohen and Christopher, JJ.Verizon New York, Inc., appellant-res, v. Supervisor of Town of Hempstead defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents- appellants; County of Nassau third-party def-res — Motion by the defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents-appellants to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal and a cross appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 9, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents-appellants’ time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until May 9, 2018, and the defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents-appellants’ brief, including the points of argument on the cross appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]), shall be served and filed on or before that date.MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Wells Fargo Bank National Association, etc., res, v. Sanjay Barot, etc., appellant def — Motion by the respondent to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 8, 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 respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until April 9, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Tracy L. Klestadt, res-ap, v. Stacy E. Klestadt, etc., appellant-res — Motion by the respondent-appellant to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal and a cross appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 27, 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 respondent-appellant’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until April 9, 2018, and the respondent-appellant’s brief, including the points of argument on the cross appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]), shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc, res, v. Paulette Angela Dennis, etc., appellant def — Motion by the respondent to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered August 23, 2016.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 respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 23, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Joanne Lynn, res, v. Barbara Johnston, ap — Motion by the respondent to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 23, 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 respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 23, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Transportation Insurance Company, res, v. Main Street America Assurance Company, ap — Motion by the respondent to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 10, 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 respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until April 19, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Cecilia Guerra, ap, v. Paul A. Ditta, res — Motion by the respondent to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 22, 2016, and May 4, 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 respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until April 19, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.Maxmillion I. Cruz plf-res, v. Valentine Packaging Corp., def-res, Marcus D. Rivera ap — Application by the defendants-respondents 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 October 14, 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 defendants-respondents’ time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until April 9, 2018, and the defendants-respondents’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Aurora Loan Services, res, v. Ahnitra Crooms, ap — Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 23, 2017. Cross motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the cross motion, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that the cross motion is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until April 9, 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., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.Desiree DiBuono res, v. Red Frog Events, LLC, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 19, 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.PEOPLE, res, Fernando Nieves, ap — Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 22, 2016.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated February 15, 2018, it isORDERED that the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Clean Earth of North Jersey, Inc., res, v. Northcoast Maintenance Corp., etc. appellants def — Application by the appellants for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 6, 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 deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.Bank of New York Mellon, res, v. Mary Cardona, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 29, 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.Joseph E. Duncan, ap, v. Maria Wuest, et al., res — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated November 7, 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.Beverly Lattimore, res-ap, v. Anita Thackurdeen appellants- res, Christopher Thackurdeen, res — Application pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect appeals and a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 3, 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 it is further,ORDERED that the appellants-respondents’ time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until May 7, 2018, the joint record or appendix on the appeal and cross appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][1]) and the appellants-respondents’ respective briefs shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that the respondent-appellant shall serve and file the answering brief, including the points of argument on the cross appeal, in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]).By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.PEOPLE, res, v. Gregory Williams, ap — Motion by the appellant’s assigned counsel on an appeal from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated July 20, 2017, in effect, to be relieved on the ground that the order was entered upon the consent of the appellant.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant is 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 order dated July 20, 2017, was entered upon his consent (see CPLR 5511), by filing an affirmation or an affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this Court on or before April 9, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion by assigned counsel, in effect, to be relieved is held in abeyance in the interim; 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 appellant at his last known place of residence or, if he is imprisoned, at the institution in which he is confined, and upon the attorney who last appeared for him, and upon the District Attorney, by ordinary mail.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Barros and Connolly, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Christopher Alacqua, ap — (S.C.I. No. 75/17) — Motion by the appellant’s assigned counsel on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 27, 2017, in effect, to be relieved on the ground that the appellant has abandoned the appeal by failing to respond to communications by assigned counsel.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant is 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 has abandoned the appeal, by filing an affirmation or an affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this Court on or before April 9, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion by assigned counsel to be relieved is held in abeyance in the interim; 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 appellant at his last known place of residence or, if he is imprisoned, at the institution in which he is confined, and upon the attorney who last appeared for him, and upon the District Attorney, by ordinary mail pursuant to CPL 470.60(2).LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc., res, v. Penelope Ifill, appellant defendants — Motion by the appellant, inter alia, to stay the sale of, or transfer of title to, the subject premises pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 15, 2015.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in 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 an order entered upon the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is denied as academic.BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., etc., plf, v. Penelope Ifill, defendants — Motion by Penelope Ifill for leave to appeal to this Court from an undated order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and to stay the sale of, or transfer of title to, the subject premises, pending hearing and determination of 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 motion is dismissed for failure to provide proof of service of the motion in accordance with the order to show cause.BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Lisa King, res, v. Marwest, LLC, ap — Motion by the appellant, inter alia, to stay the trial in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated January 16, 2018.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.MATTER of Jennifer Elflein, ap, v. Suffolk County Board of Ethics res — 2018-00201MATTER of Jennifer Elflein, appellant,v Suffolk County Board of Ethics, respondents.(Index No. 10011/16) Motion by the appellant to stay enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated July 7, 2017, and a judgment of the same court dated October 17, 2017, pending hearing and determination of appeals therefrom.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that the order is not appealable as of right and leave to appeal has not been granted (see CPLR 5701); and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is denied.BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Jesse Cole, res, v. Samantha Cole, ap — Motion by the appellant to stay enforcement of stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated September 12, 2017, and to remand the children to the care and custody of the appellant, pending hearing and determination of an appeal from the judgment.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Patrisha Mahon, ap, v. Euclid Mahon, def, 731 Lenox, LLC, res — Motion by Patrisha Mahon on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 18, 2017, to deem the notice of appeal to be on her behalf as the proper party appellant and to stay all proceedings in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of the appeal.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 deem the notice of appeal to be on behalf of Patrisha Mahon as the proper party appellant is granted (see CPLR 2001); and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Stephen Mitchell, ap — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 23, 2014.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 serve and file a brief is enlarged until May 9, 2018, and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Stephen Mitchell, ap — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 20, 2015.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 serve and file a brief is enlarged until May 9, 2018, and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.MATTER of D. (Anonymous). Elizabeth P. (Anonymous), petitioner-res, Darren M. (Anonymous), res-ap, Juan P. (Anonymous), res-res — Motion by the respondent-appellant pro se for leave to serve and file a supplemental brief on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County, dated July 7, 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, and the respondent-appellant shall file nine copies of the supplemental brief and serve one copy on each of the parties to the appeal on or before April 9, 2018.BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.MATTER of Maninder S. (Anonymous). Manjit K. (Anonymous), petitioner-appellant; Bhajan K. (Anonymous) respondents- res — Application by the petitioner-appellant to withdraw appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, both dated June 21, 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 appeals are marked withdrawn.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.MATTER of Giavanna L. (Anonymous). Frank R. (Anonymous), petitioner-res, Brendon L. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant; Erika G. (Anonymous), res-res — Appeal by Brendon L. from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated October 26, 2017. By order to show cause dated January 26, 2018, 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 proceeding for failure to comply with a dated December 5, 2017, issued pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]).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, without costs or disbursements, for failure to comply with the dated December 5, 2017, issued pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]).BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.MATTER of Jose Franco, ap, v. Ana Santamaria, res — Appeal by Jose Franco from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated September 27, 2017. By order to show cause dated January 26, 2018, 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 proceeding for failure to comply with a dated November 29, 2017, issued pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]).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, without costs or disbursements, for failure to comply with the dated November 29, 2017, issued pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]).BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.Madelaine Hebranko, etc. res, v. Magdi Bebawi, etc. ap, def — Application by the appellant Brookhaven Rehabilitation and Health Care Center on appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 23, 2017 to withdraw its appeal.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 by the appellant Brookhaven Rehabilitation and Health Care Center is marked withdrawn.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.MATTER of Roberta Lebowitz, res, v. Howard R. Lebowitz, ap — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Howard R. Lebowitz, ap, v. Roberta Lebowitz, res — (Proceeding No. 2) — Appeal by Howard R. Lebowitz from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated October 2, 2017. By order to show cause dated February 2, 2018, 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 proceedings for failure to comply with a dated December 14, 2017, issued pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]).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, without costs or disbursements, for failure to comply with the dated December 14, 2017, issued pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]).BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.MATTER of Timothy R. (Anonymous), ap, v. Laverne S. G. (Anonymous), res — Appeals by Timothy R. from two orders of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated June 27, 2017, and September 14, 2017, respectively. By order to show cause dated January 26, 2018, 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 proceeding for failure to comply with a dated December 5, 2017, issued pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]). Motion by the appellant for leave to prosecute the appeals as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel.Now, upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for leave to prosecute the appeals on the original papers is denied as unnecessary (see Family Ct Act §1116), and the appeals will be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the appellant, the respondent, and the attorney for the child, if any. The parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other (22 NYCRR 670.9[d][1][ii]; Family Ct Act §1116); and it is further,ORDERED that the branches of the motion which are to waive the filing fee, for free transcripts, and for the assignment of counsel are denied; and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this decision and order on motion, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of the Court an affidavit or affirmation stating that the transcript was received and indicating the date that it was received, or, if the transcript was not received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it was ordered and paid for, the date thereof, and the date by which the transcript is expected.BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.Mary McConville res, v. Alice Kim, etc. ap — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 23, 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.Jack Flanigan, etc. res, v. Laurence F. Mack, etc. def, Daniel Faustin, etc. ap — Application by the appellant Mercy Medical Center to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated July 19, 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 by the appellant Mercy Medical Center is marked withdrawn.Maria Twarog, res, v. Maria Ortiz-Deviteri ap — Application by the appellants to withdraw appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 23, 2016 and January 5, 2017, respectively.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 appeals are marked withdrawn.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Stephen Parrotta, res, v. Family Residences and Essential Enterprises, Inc., ap — Application by the appellant for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 11, 2015.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 deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Citimortgage, Inc., res, v. Everette Weaver, ap, et al., def — Motion by the appellant pro se on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 26, 2016, to waive compliance with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 670.10.2(f) regarding certification of the record on appeal. Separate motion by the respondent to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the record is inadequate or, in the alternative, to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief.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 and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the respondent’s motion which is to dismiss the appeal is denied on condition that on or before April 3, 2018, the appellant serve and file a supplemental record containing the documents listed in paragraph 5 of the affirmation in support of the respondent’s motion; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the respondent’s 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 3, 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 waive compliance with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 670.10.2(f) regarding certification of the record is denied with leave to renew by a motion made simultaneously with the filing of the supplemental record.BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Board of Managers of Sunrise Manor Condominium Association, res, v. Sunrise Enterprise, Inc., def, Arkady Zirkiev appellants (and a third-party action). — Motion by the appellant Zoya Aksakalova on appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 22, 2017, to enlarge the time to perfect her appeal. Application by the appellant Arkady Zirkiev pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect his appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the application, and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion and the application are granted, the appellants’ time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until April 9, 2018, and the joint record or appendix on the appeals and the appellants’ respective briefs shall be served and filed on or before that date.BALKIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Stefanie F. (Anonymous), respondent v. Leon H. (Anonymous), ap — On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the of this Court dated February 14, 2018, in the above-entitled matter, on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County, dated July 25, 2017, is amended by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the date “March 7, 2018,” and substituting therefor the date “March 9, 2018.”SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Lori A. Janczewski, appellant, Assignment of Counsel v Adam J. Janczewski, respondent.Appeal by Lori A. Janczewski from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated January 29, 2017. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Tiffany Moseley, Esq., dated March 3, 2018, it is ORDERED that the appellant is granted leave to proceed as a poor person on the appeal, and the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:Heather Fig, Esq.Bayport Professional Centre982 Montauk Highway, Suite 6Bayport, NY 11705631-419-6111and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel shall promptly attempt to contact the appellant at the address provided by this Court, and on or before March 23, 2018, shall notify the Case Manager assigned to the appeal, in writing, that she has done so and that either(1) the appellant is interested in prosecuting the appeal, or (2) the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, or that she has been unable to contact the appellant, and wishes to be relieved of the assignment; and it is further,ORDERED that the appeal will be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the appellant, the respondent, and the attorney for the child, if any. The parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other (22 NYCRR 670.9[d][1][ii]; Family Ct Act §1116); and it is further,ORDERED that the stenographer(s) and/or the transcription service(s) is/are required promptly to make and certify two transcripts of the proceedings, if any, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (22 NYCRR 671.9); in the case of stenographers, both transcripts shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court, and the clerk of the Family Court shall furnish one of such certified transcripts to the appellant’s assigned counsel, without charge; in the case of transcription services, one transcript shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court and one transcript shall be delivered to the assigned counsel. Assigned counsel is directed to provide copies of said transcripts to all of the other parties to the appeal, including the attorney for the child, if any, when counsel serves the appellant’s brief upon those parties; and it is further,ORDERED that the assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with any or orders issued pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]); and it is further,ORDERED that upon a determination that the appellant is interested in proceeding with the appeal, the assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.
