Appellate TermSecond DepartmentSecond, Eleventhand ThirteenthJudical DistrictsBy: Pesce, P.J., Weston, Elliot, JJ.Harvey A. Herbert, Esq., for appellant-respondent.Wenig Saltiel, LLP (Jeffrey L. Saltiel, Esq.) for respondent-appellant.2015-2425 K C. KHEYN v. VITOVSKA — Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lisa S. Ottley, J.), entered May 13, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from by landlord, denied his cross motion for the imposition of monetary sanctions upon tenant Svetlana Vitovska and for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. The order, insofar as cross-appealed from by tenant Svetlana Vitovska, stated that her motion to reduce the “settled” transcript to an appealable order had been referred to Supreme Court Justice Johnny Lee Baynes, who had denied her motion.ORDERED that, on the court’s own motion, the cross appeal is dismissed, as the motion by tenant Svetlana Vitovska remains pending and undecided (see Ganai v. 6910 Fort Hamilton Parkway Corp., 149 AD3d 914 [2017]); and it is further,ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from by landlord, is affirmed, without costs.In February 2009, landlord commenced a holdover proceeding against Svetlana Vitovska (tenant), among others. In May 2009, the parties, represented by counsel, entered into a so-ordered stipulation of settlement whereby tenant surrendered the premises to landlord who, in turn, waived all claims for rent, damages and legal fees. Landlord agreed to return tenant’s $1,500 security deposit in three separate payments made by certified check, each in the sum of $500. The stipulation provided that should any of the three payments not be timely made, tenant could enter judgment against landlord in the sum of $5,000. After landlord defaulted, a judgment in the sum of $5,000 was entered against him in July 2009.In May 2010, landlord was personally served with a “Subpoena for Taking a Deposition With Restraining Notice,” pursuant to CPLR 5223. He did not appear on the date scheduled for deposition. Tenant then moved, by order to show cause, to hold landlord in civil contempt, pursuant to CPLR 5251, for his willful disobedience of the subpoena. On October 1, 2010, the Civil Court (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.) issued an order of contempt imposing a fine of $250, directing that a judgment be entered in tenant’s favor in the amount of $5,817.45 (representing reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements) and ordering the issuance of a warrant of arrest unless, within 10 days of the order, landlord tendered to tenant’s counsel the total sum of $6,067.45 and indicated his willingness to comply with the subpoena. As landlord did not purge himself of the contempt, he was ultimately arrested, pursuant to the warrant. On November 24, 2010, he was brought before the Civil Court (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.) for a hearing, the transcript of which reflects that the court stated that it was reducing the contempt penalty and directed tenant’s counsel to accept a total of $6,300 in satisfaction of both the outstanding $5,000 judgment in the underlying holdover proceeding and the $6,067.45 due pursuant to the October 1, 2010 contempt order. However, the court’s decision was never reduced to an appealable paper (see CPLR 5512).Thereafter, tenant made several unsuccessful motions for an order deeming settled the excerpt from the November 24, 2010 transcript which contained the court’s oral decision. After tenant finally prevailed on a motion requesting such relief, she moved, in October 2014, for an order reducing the “previously settled transcript dated November 24, 2014 to an appealable Order.” Landlord cross-moved, pursuant to Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) §130-1.1 (a), to impose monetary sanctions upon tenant for filing a frivolous motion and to award him reasonable attorney’s fees.In an order entered May 13, 2015, the Civil Court (Lisa S. Ottley, J.) stated: “On May 11, 2015 [tenant's] motion was respectfully referred to the Hon. Johnny Lee Baynes, Justice of the Supreme Court. [Tenant's] motion and [proposed] order attached for signature was denied by Justice Baynes. The [c]ross motion for reasonable attorney’s fees [and] for sanctions is hereby denied by this court.” Annexed to Judge Ottley’s order was a copy of tenant’s proposed order, which bore the following notation: “Denied. Five (5) years since that date of this decision encompassed in transcript. 5-11-15.” The notation was signed by “Johnny L. Baynes Justice Supreme Court.” We note that Justice Baynes became a Supreme Court Justice on January 1, 2012.Landlord appeals from so much of Judge Ottley’s May 13, 2015 order as denied his cross motion to impose monetary sanctions upon tenant and to award him reasonable attorney’s fees. Tenant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as stated that her motion to reduce the “settled” transcript to an appealable order had been referred to Supreme Court Justice Johnny Lee Baynes, who had denied her motion.A judge’s powers, with respect to actions pending before him or her, generally terminate upon the termination of his or her office by resignation, removal, expiration of his or her term, or otherwise (see Matter of Mayor of City of N.Y., 139 NY 140, 142 [1893]; People v. Poole, 133 NYS2d 465 [Sullivan County Ct 1954]). With respect to proceedings in the Civil Court, Justice Baynes, as a Supreme Court Justice, was not authorized to decide tenant’s motion (compare NY Const, art VI, §26 [a]; Judiciary Law §§7-a, 147-a; CCA 1704 [a]). Consequently, his purported denial of tenant’s motion is a nullity.However, a decision or determination by a Civil Court judge who is no longer in office may be given effect by any other judge of the Civil Court who is authorized to sign an appropriate order or judgment based thereon (see CPLR 9002; see also Lindt v. Guggenheim Found., 24 AD2d 944 [1965]). Consequently, rather than referring tenant’s motion to Supreme Court Justice Baynes, the Civil Court should have made its own determination with respect thereto. In view of the fact that the Civil Court failed to do so, and since Justice Baynes’s purported order thereon is a nullity, tenant’s motion remains pending and undecided and, therefore, the cross appeal is not properly before this court (see Ganai v. 6910 Fort Hamilton Parkway Corp., 149 AD3d 914). Accordingly, tenant’s cross appeal is dismissed.The Civil Court did, however, make its own determination in denying landlord’s cross motion for the imposition of sanctions and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. Upon a review of the record, we are of the opinion that tenant’s conduct did not rise to the level of “frivolous conduct” as defined by Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) §130-1.1 (c). Therefore, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying landlord’s cross motion. Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from by landlord, is affirmed.PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.February 23, 2018Law Offices of Peter C. Merani, P.C. (Eric M. Wahrburg, Esq.), for appellant.Zara Javakov, P.C. (Zara Javakov, Esq.), for respondent.2016-475 K C. PREMIER SURGICAL SERVS., P.C. v. ALLSTATE INS. CO. — Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered February 8, 2016. The order denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment.ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered upon its failure to appear or answer.A defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; Star Indus., Inc. v. Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 AD3d 903, 904 [2008]), and a court, in its discretion, may accept a claim of law office failure as an excuse (see CPLR 2005; Star Indus., Inc. v. Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 AD3d at 904; Papandrea v. Acevedo, 54 AD3d 915 [2008]). The affirmation submitted by defendant’s attorney in support of the motion did not provide a “detailed and credible” explanation of the law office failure that had caused the default (see Estrada v. Selman, 130 AD3d 562, 562-563 [2015]; Michaels v. Sunrise Bldg. & Remodeling, Inc., 65 AD3d 1021, 1023 [2009]; Lugauer v. Forest City Ratner Co., 44 AD3d 829, 830 [2007]; Hospital for Joint Diseases v. ELRAC, Inc., 11 AD3d 432, 433 [2004]). Consequently, defendant’s conclusory claim of law office failure did not rise to the level of a reasonable excuse (see Michaels v. Sunrise Bldg. & Remodeling, Inc., 65 AD3d at 1023; Star Indus., Inc. v. Innovative Beverages, Inc., 55 AD3d at 904; Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 AD3d 783, 784 [2008]; Piton v. Cribb, 38 AD3d 741, 742 [2007]; Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v. Holder, 31 AD3d 636, 637 [2006]). In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider whether defendant demonstrated a meritorious defense to the action (see Levi v. Levi, 46 AD3d 519, 520 [2007]). Consequently, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying defendant’s motion (see Petersen v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., 47 AD3d at 784; Piton v. Cribb, 38 AD3d at 742).We note that, at oral argument, defendant’s attorney asserted that plaintiff had improperly served the summons and complaint on defendant at its Long Island office. However, since this argument was not raised in defendant’s brief, we decline to address it on appeal (see Pellescki v. City of Rochester, 198 AD2d 762, 763 [1993]; see also McHale v. Anthony, 41 AD3d 265, 266-267 [2007]; Crown Asset Mgt., LLC v. Ferreri, 48 Misc 3d 132[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51064[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]).Accordingly, the order is affirmed.PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.February 23, 2018By: Pesce, P.J., Aliotta, Elliot, JJ.Kazmi & Reeves, LLP (John W. Reeves of counsel), for appellant.Meyers, Saxon & Cole (Margaret J. Leszkiewicz of counsel), for respondent.2016-2038 K C. SLEEPABLE SOFA, LTD. v. HENDERSON — Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), entered December 1, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,900.ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the principal sum of $2,900, alleging that this was the balance owed after defendant had purchased a couch from plaintiff’s store, made a deposit, and taken delivery on the couch. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court found in favor of plaintiff, awarding it the principal sum of $2,900, finding that it had proved its prima facie case.In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of this court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court’s opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Hamilton v. Blackwood, 85 AD3d 1116 [2011]; Zeltser v. Sacerdote, 52 AD3d 824, 826 [2008]). Upon a review of the record, we find, contrary to defendant’s argument, that there is adequate support for the Civil Court’s determination that defendant entered into the agreement to purchase the couch. It is undisputed that there is a balance due of $2,900, and defendant did not produce any evidence to support his claim that the couch was defective.Defendant argues that the Civil Court improperly declined his request for an adjournment, and that he could have rebutted plaintiff’s case had he been granted the adjournment. However, the details of the request for the adjournment, while set forth in defendant’s brief, are not a part of the record on appeal, and this court cannot consider these dehors-the-record allegations (see Chimarios v. Duhl, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]). Finally, contrary to defendant’s argument, improper venue is not a ground for dismissal (see CCA 306). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.February 23, 20182017-378 K C. ACTUAL CHIROPRACTIC, P.C. v. STATE FARM INS. — Motion by appellant for a stay pending the determination of an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered March 16, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted.February 20, 2018By: Pesce, P.J., Aliotta, Solomon, JJ.2017-1022 K C. ONEAFTER v. NYARI — Motion by appellant for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division from a decision and order on motion of this court dated January 4, 2018, which granted respondents’ motion to dismiss as untimely an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered March 7, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.Solomon, J., taking no part.February 20, 2018By: Pesce, P.J., Aliotta, Elliot, JJ.2017-2111 K C. AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC CARE, P.C. v. GEICO INS. — Motion by appellant for a stay pending the determination of an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered July 28, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted on condition the appeal be perfected on or before May 4, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before May 4, 2018, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, without further notice, or respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days’ notice, and may serve such application in person.February 20, 20182017-2112 K C. AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC CARE, P.C. v. GEICO INS. — Motion by appellant for a stay pending the determination of an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered July 28, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted on condition the appeal be perfected on or before May 4, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before May 4, 2018, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, without further notice, or respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days’ notice, and may serve such application in person.February 20, 20182017-2113 K C. AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC CARE, P.C. v. GEICO INS. — Motion by appellant for a stay pending the determination of an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered July 28, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted on condition the appeal be perfected on or before May 4, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before May 4, 2018, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, without further notice, or respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days’ notice, and may serve such application in person.February 20, 20182017-2114 K C. AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC CARE, P.C. v. GEICO INS. — Motion by appellant for a stay pending the determination of an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered July 28, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted on condition the appeal be perfected on or before May 4, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before May 4, 2018, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, without further notice, or respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days’ notice, and may serve such application in person.February 20, 20182017-2130 K C. AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC CARE, P.C. v. GEICO INS. — Motion by appellant for a stay pending the determination of an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered July 28, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted on condition the appeal be perfected on or before May 4, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before May 4, 2018, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, without further notice, or respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days’ notice, and may serve such application in person.February 20, 20182017-2131 K C. AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC CARE, P.C. v. GEICO INS. — Motion by appellant for a stay pending the determination of an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered July 28, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted on condition the appeal be perfected on or before May 4, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before May 4, 2018, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, without further notice, or respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days’ notice, and may serve such application in person.February 20, 20182017-2132 K C. AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC CARE, P.C. v. GEICO INS. — Motion by appellant for a stay pending the determination of an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered July 28, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted on condition the appeal be perfected on or before May 4, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before May 4, 2018, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, without further notice, or respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days’ notice, and may serve such application in person.February 20, 20182017-2133 K C. AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC CARE, P.C. v. GEICO INS. — Motion by appellant for stay pending the determination of the appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered July 28, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted on condition the appeal be perfected on or before May 4, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before May 4, 2018, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, without further notice, or respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days’ notice, and may serve such application in person.February 20, 20182018-104 K C. PERFORMANCE PLUS MED., P.C. v. AMERICAN IND. INS. CO. — Motion by appellant for a stay pending the determination of an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered January 9, 2018.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted on condition the appeal be perfected by May 4, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the appeal is not perfected on or before May 4, 2018, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, or respondent may move to vacate the stay on three days’ notice, and may serve such application in person.February 20, 20182018-323 Q C. SYLLA v. NDIAYE — Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, entered August 9, 2017.On the court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as any right of direct appeal from the intermediate order terminated with the entry of a final judgment on November 30, 2017 (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]).February 20, 20182018-325 Q C. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. MARS — Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, entered July 18, 2017.On the court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as the proceeding was settled by stipulation dated October 2, 2017.February 20, 20182018-326 Q C. QUEENS VENTURA II, LLC v. VALDES — Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, entered January 3, 2017.On the court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as any right of direct appeal from the intermediate order terminated with the entry of a final judgment on December 14, 2017 (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]).February 20, 2018Ninth and TenthJudical DisTRICTSBy: Garguilo, J.P., Tolbert, Ruderman, JJ.Geist, Schwartz & Jellinek, PLLC (Matthew D. Schwarz of counsel), for appellant-respondent.Harwood Reiff, LLC (Simon W. Reiff of counsel), for respondent-appellant (no brief filed).2016-2143 W C. EDGEMONT ASSOC., LLC v. GOLDMAN — Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Justice Court of the Town of Greenburgh, Westchester County (Delores Scott Brathwaite, J.), entered June 7, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from by landlord, granted the branch of tenants’ motion seeking the entry of a money judgment in the sum of $50,000 pursuant to the terms of a so-ordered stipulation settling a holdover summary proceeding. The order, insofar as cross-appealed from by tenants, denied the branch of tenants’ motion seeking an award of attorney’s fees as an incident of the award of $50,000.ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, and tenants’ motion for the entry of a money judgment in the sum of $50,000 and for an award of incidental attorney’s fees is dismissed.In this nonprimary-residence holdover proceeding to recover possession of a rent-regulated apartment, the parties entered into a so-ordered stipulation of settlement which provided for, among other things, the entry of a final judgment in favor of landlord, with the execution of the warrant stayed through December 31, 2015, in return for which tenants agreed to pay use and occupancy through December 2015 and were to receive a $50,000 buyout from landlord if they surrendered the premises by December 31, 2015. After landlord refused to pay tenants the $50,000, tenants, claiming that they had moved all of their belongings out of, and surrendered, the premises on December 20, 2015 but, due to a misunderstanding, landlord had not received the keys to the premises until January 7, 2016, moved, in the Justice Court, to enforce the payment terms of the stipulation and to recover incidental attorney’s fees. Landlord appeals from so much of an order of the Justice Court entered June 7, 2016 as granted the branch of tenants’ motion seeking to enforce the payment of $50,000. Tenants cross-appeal from so much of the order as denied the branch of their motion seeking incidental attorney’s fees.Even assuming arguendo that the Justice Court would have jurisdiction, prior to the termination of a summary proceeding, to enforce a term of a stipulation requiring a petitioner to make a payment to a respondent (see 952 Assoc., LLC v. Palmer, 52 AD3d 236 [1st Dept 2008]; but see UJCA 204), in this case, the summary proceeding had terminated and was no longer pending following the entry of a final judgment of possession in favor of landlord and tenants’ subsequent vacating of the premises (see Witmarsh v. Farnell, 298 NY 336 [1949]; Sweet v. Sanella, 46 AD2d 688 [1974]). Once the proceeding terminated, the Justice Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain tenants’ motion for the entry of a money judgment pursuant to the stipulation (see 1472 Props., LLC v. Solanki, 52 Misc 3d 139[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51127[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2016]; cf. Teitelbaum Holdings, Ltd. v. Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 56 [1979]; Henry v. Almanacid, 13 Misc 3d 132[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51878[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]). In any event, while the Justice Court has jurisdiction “to render judgment for rent due without regard to amount” (UJCA 204), its monetary jurisdiction is otherwise limited to $3,000 (UJCA 202). As the $50,000, plus attorney’s fees, which tenants seek to recover was not rent, the Justice Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain their motion.Accordingly, the order is reversed and tenants’ motion for the entry of a money judgment in the sum of $50,000 and for an award of attorney’s fees is dismissed.GARGUILO, J.P., and RUDERMAN, J., concur.TOLBERT, J., taking no part.February 22, 2018By: Marano, P.J., Tolbert, Garguilo, JJ.2017-200 N CR. THE PEOPLE v. NUNEZ, JESUS A. — Motion N. Scott Banks, Esq., counsel assigned to represent appellant on an appeal from a judgment of conviction of the District Court of Nassau County, First District, rendered October 27, 2016, to be relieved as counsel on the ground that appellant has abandoned the appeal by failing to respond to correspondence sent to him by assigned counsel. By order to show cause dated November 17, 2017, appellant was directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that he had abandoned the appeal, and the motion by assigned counsel to be relieved was held in abeyance in the interim.Upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the motion by assigned counsel 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; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion by assigned counsel, in effect, to be relieved is granted.February 20, 20182017-933 N C. LUBIN v. EAST — Motion by respondents on an appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District, entered April 28, 2017, to, among other things, direct appellant to pay respondents arrears in use and occupancy. By decision and order on motion of this court dated July 19, 2017, appellant’s prior motion for a stay was granted on the condition, among others, that the appeal be perfected by October 6, 2017. By decision and order on motion of this court dated October 18, 2017, a cross motion by appellant to continue the stay was granted on the condition, among others, that the appeal be perfected by November 24, 2017. The appeal has not been perfected.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the stay is vacated; and it is further,ORDERED that respondents’ motion is denied as moot.February 20, 20182017-1430 S C. McDONNELL v. MITCHELL — Motion by respondent on an appeal from a final judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District, entered June 1, 2017, to vacate a stay granted by decision and order on motion of this court dated August 11, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the stay is vacated.February 20, 20182017-1779 S C. HIGHVIEW AT HUNTINGTON OWNERS CORP. v. JOHN-LEWIS — Motion by respondent on an appeal from a final judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District, entered September 13, 2017, to vacate a stay granted by decision and order on motion of this court dated October 27, 2017. Cross motion by appellant to continue the stay.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the cross motion, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that respondent’s motion is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that appellant’s cross motion is granted on condition that within 10 days from the date of this decision and order on motion, appellant deposit with the court below the sum of $5,518.84 and continue to pay respondent any and all arrears in rent and/or use and occupancy from February 1, 2018 at the rate previously payable as rent and upon the further condition that appellant perfect the appeal by April 6, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event that any of the above conditions are not met, the court, on its own motion, may vacate the stay, without further notice, or respondent may move to vacate the stay, on three days’ notice.February 20, 20182017-2166 W C. 100 HIGHLAND AVE. ASSOC., LLC v. NAVARRO — Motion by respondent-appellant Jose M. Santos Torres for a stay pending the determination of an appeal and cross appeal from a decision of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County, dated September 15, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the cross appeal by respondent-appellant Jose M. Santos Torres is dismissed, as no appeal lies from findings of fact and conclusions of law (see Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Guy, 140 AD3d 1131 [2016]); and it is further,ORDERED that the motion for a stay is denied as academic.February 20, 2018
