16-128. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. NELSON BERNAL-HERNANDEZ, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Abraham Clott, J.), rendered April 8, 2015, affirmed.The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The credibility issues raised by defendant were properly placed before the trier of fact and, after considering the relative force of the conflicting testimony and the competing inferences that may be drawn therefrom, we find no reason on the record before us to disturb the court’s determination to credit the arresting officers’ testimony rather than defendant’s.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.February 26, 201817-411. SUNG YOON KIM, pet-lan-app, v. MARIANNA HETTINGER, res-ten-res, -and- “JOHN DOE,” AND/OR “JANE DOE,” res-unt — Order (John H. Stanley, J.), dated July 21, 2017, modified by denying tenant’s motion, reinstating the petition, and remanding the matter to Civil Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision; as modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs to landlord-appellant.The notice of nonrenewal underlying this owner-occupancy holdover proceeding stated, inter alia, that landlord intends to “recover possession of all of the apartments within the building, including the subject apartment” and convert the five-story, nine-apartment building to a single-family dwelling for herself, her named husband and their two children. In this connection, the notice set forth in detail the contemplated use of the space on a floor-by-floor basis, reflecting landlord’s plan to create a single, integrated structure that would serve as a primary residence for herself and her immediate family. The notice also stated the current residence of landlord and her family, alleging that they reside in an apartment on Riverside Blvd. in New York City.In such particularized form, the notice of nonrenewal utilized by landlord fully complied with the specificity requirements of Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) §2524.2(b) and served as a proper predicate for this owner-occupancy holdover proceeding (see Hirsch v. Stewart, 63 AD3d 74 [2009]; Rudd v. Sharff, 30 Misc 3d 35 [2010]; see also Pultz v. Economakis, 10 NY3d 542 [2008]). Information concerning such matters as the size of landlord’s current residence can readily be acquired through a bill of particulars (see Pinehurst Constr. Corp. v. Schlesinger, 38 AD3d 474, 475 [2007]; City of New York v. Valera, 216 AD2d 237 [1995]), and any further evidentiary matters such as the feasibility of landlord’s proposed renovations and the status of landlord’s recovery of other apartments in her building-wide renovation plan are more appropriately explored during the discovery phase of the proceeding (see Matter of Giancola v. Middleton, 73 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2010]; McGoldrick v. DeCruz, 195 Misc 2d 414, 415 [2003]; Rudd v. Sharff, 30 Misc 3d at 459; see also Bouton v. De Almo, 12 Misc 3d 132[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51166[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2006] [court policy favors disclosure in owner use proceedings]). A predicate notice in a holdover summary proceeding need not lay bare a landlord’s trial proof, and will be upheld in the face of a “jurisdictional” challenge where, as here, the notice is “as a whole sufficient[ly] adequate[] to advise…tenant and to permit it to frame a defense” (Rascoff/Zsyblat Org. v. Directors Guild of Am., 297 AD2d 241, 242 [2002], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 99 NY2d 573 [2003]; see Hughes v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 226 AD2d 4, 18 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 829 [1997]).In reinstating the petition, we do not pass upon the landlord’s application for payment of interim use and occupancy, a matter not reached below. Our disposition is without prejudice to the landlord’s right to renew its application for such relief in the Civil Court.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.February 26, 201815-383. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, res, v. AIMEE LEMOULLEC, def-app — Judgment of conviction (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), rendered October 28, 2014, reversed, on the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the information is dismissed.The verdict convicting defendant of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree was against the weight of the evidence. Under these particular circumstances, “an acquittal would not have been unreasonable” as there was conflicting testimony and a lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]; People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). In view of the significant inconsistencies in the testimony of the two testifying police officers regarding what transpired prior to their arrest of defendant and her two companions, who were approaching their parked vehicle after attending a show at Webster Hall, and whether the officers, who had been participating in an unrelated undercover drug operation while sitting in the vehicle parked directly in front of defendant’s vehicle, adequately identified themselves to defendant as police officers, the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant “intentionally…prevent[ed] or attempt[ed] to prevent [the police] from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference” (Penal Law §195.05). In performing our de novo review of the evidence in this close case, we note that defendant’s friend/codefendant was acquitted of the same charge, based upon essentially the same evidence (see People v. Rayam, 94 NY2d 557, 560 n [2000]). This acquittal, even if not repugnant or inconsistent with defendant’s conviction, indicates that the jury did not credit the police testimony “in toto” (see People v. Roman, 217 AD2d 431, 432 [1995]).In view of our determination, we reach no other issue.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.February 26, 201817-433. WELL DONE REALTY, LLC, pet-lan-res, v. BENJAMIN EPPS AND AMY MONROE-EPPS, res-ten-app, -and- SUE MONROE, “JOHN DOE” AND “JANE DOE,” res-unt-app — Final judgment (Jean T. Schneider, J.), entered February 7, 2017, affirmed, with $25 costs.Undertenant Sue Monroe failed to raise any triable issue of fact with respect to her proffered succession defense. It is undisputed that while the record tenants of the subject rent stabilized apartment began residing elsewhere in 2003, they continued to execute renewal leases for the apartment extending through September 2015 and continued to pay rent by checks in their names during that time. Thus, tenants “cannot be found to have permanently vacated the apartment at any time prior to the expiration of the last lease renewal on [September 30, 2015]” (Third Lenox Terrace Assoc. v. Edwards, 91 AD3d 532, 533 [2012]). In the absence of any evidence tending to show that undertenant Monroe, the mother of tenant Amy Monroe-Epps, “resided with” tenants in the subject apartment during the two-year period immediately preceding the tenants’ permanent vacatur (Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] §2523.5[b][1]), her succession claim must fail (see Third Lenox Terrace Assoc. v. Edwards, 91 AD3d at 533; Mia Terra Realty Corp. v. Sloan, 57 Misc 3d 141[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51360[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017).Nor has undertenant raised a triable issue as to whether landlord recognized her as a tenant in her own right or waived the right to contest her continued occupancy (see 117 W. 57th St. Realty Corp. v. Estate of Hultgren, 205 AD2d 363 [1994], revg for reasons stated in dissenting op. of McCooe, J., NYLJ, Sept 14, 1993, at 21, col 1, 1993 WL 393073 [App Term, 1st Dept 1993]; 206 W. 104th St. LLC v. Zapata, 45 Misc 3d 135[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51747[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2014]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.February 26, 2018New York CountyFirst DepartmentSUPREME COURTJustice Nancy M. BannonAsensio v. Fasanya (156692/17)—See DecisionJaffe & Asher Llp v. Lawyers Fund For Client (155428/17)—Case DisposedWechsler v. Lawyers’ Fund For Client (159828/17)—Case DisposedJustice Lucy BillingsGivens v. Menin (100016/16)—Case DisposedJdg Investigations, Inc. v. NYC (100224/16)—Case DisposedSpent Service, Inc. v. Marcano (113308/11)—See DecisionArazosa v. 3m Co. (190069/16)—See DecisionMcCarthy v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (190288/14)—See DecisionMessier v. Abb Lummuss Global, Inc. (108886/02)—See DecisionMorris v. Abb (190259/15)—See DecisionStory v. Abb Turbine , Inc. (190285/15)—See DecisionVanderhall v. American Biltrite (190131/16)—See DecisionJustice Arlene P. BluthFoster v. Fed. Nat. Mortgage (100697/17)—Case DisposedFoster v. Fed. Nat. Mortgage (100697/17)—See DecisionHomeward Residential, Inc. v. Thompson Hine Llp (156730/17)—Case DisposedMartinez v. NYS Div. of Housing (100789/17)—Case DisposedJustice Eileen BranstenPdl Biopharma, Inc. v. Wohlstadter (653028/15)—See DecisionJustice A. CannataroBrown v. Visiting Nurse Service of (156349/17)—See DecisionCountry-Wide Ins. Co. v. Emmanuel (156406/17)—Case DisposedG.S. 505 Park LLC v. Shahar (160520/16)—Case DisposedLaw Offices of Michael S. v. Gruenberg Kelly Della (158058/17)—See DecisionLaw Offices of Michael S. v. Lesch & Lesch (160045/17)—Case DisposedMbe Capital Patners v. Michigan Minority Purchasing (656011/16)—See DecisionSankin v. Dubin (157460/17)—Case DisposedJustice Margaret A. ChanLoiero v. Capital Realty Investors (652488/17)—See DecisionBromm v. Kempkes (654756/17)—Case DisposedColonial Funding Network, Inc. v. Carter’s Logging (656392/16)—Case DisposedLynch v. NYC (655831/16)—See DecisionMartin Auer Bakehouse – USA v. Greenwood Vc (654572/17)—Case DisposedJustice David CohenCountry-Wide Ins. Co. v. Williams (156486/17)—See DecisionJustice Melissa Anne Crane115 Kingston Ave. LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. (654456/16)—See DecisionHalstead Prop. v. Hofmann (155508/15)—See DecisionNY Life Ins. v. Saucke (653410/16)—See DecisionJustice Laura E. DragerIovino v. Iovino (300113/18)—Case DisposedJustice Carol R. Edmead56 West 11th Street Llc v. Quinn (156993/16)—See Decision28 Cliff St. Condominium v. Maguire (653115/14)—See DecisionJustice Arthur F. Engoron140 W. 57th St. Bldg. v. Berrie (652757/15)—See DecisionRuss v. 140 W. 57th St. Bldg. (160841/14)—See DecisionJustice Paul Allan GoetzMcMahon v. Cobblestone Lofts (151136/14)—See DecisionSalvator v. 55 Residents Corp. (154509/15)—See DecisionKahan v. Khemlani (653764/14)—Case DisposedJustice Shlomo S. HaglerAbney v. Olatoye (452133/17)—Case DisposedDongbu Ins. Co. v. Dna Bldg. Systems (156839/16)—See DecisionMarvin v. Johnson (159933/17)—See DecisionMeygrand Associates LLC v. 400 Madison Hldgs. (150228/18)—Case DisposedMorgan Stanley Smith Barney v. Financial Indus. (650114/18)—Case DisposedNYCTL 2014-A Trust v. Odell Clark Pl. LLC (153698/15)—See DecisionTsang v. Jeanco Hldgs. (159495/14)—See DecisionHumblemonkey v. Rice Securities (652534/14)—See DecisionHyde v. Okolie (152489/16)—See DecisionLopez v. Lieutenant Montellano (101664/17)—Case DisposedJustice Barbara JaffeBartlett v. A.C. & S. (114328/02)—Motn Disp. As Ind. Set/orderGardner v. Gotham Per Diem, Inc. (100710/16)—See DecisionJackson v. Ponte (100394/17)—Case DisposedRobinson v. Dinneen (158939/17)—See DecisionStand Up Mri of The Bronx v. Ameriprise Ins. Co. (652755/17)—Case DisposedKaouris v. NY Dept. of (154813/17)—Case DisposedAlvarenga v. 141 East 88th St. (151894/15)—See DecisionGonzalez v. Con Ed Co. (402162/08)—See DecisionMushlam, Inc. v. Nazor (100207/08)—See DecisionRodrigues v. Watershed Ventures LLC (150644/17)—See DecisionJustice John J. KelleyBatista v. NYC Dept of Housing (101327/17)—Case DisposedJustice Shirley KornreichTalking Capital LLC v. Omanoff (650973/17)—See DecisionJustice Lynn KotlerMendoza v. NYC (156189/15)—See DecisionNorguard Ins. Co. v. Paramount Builders (651683/14)—See DecisionOrtiz v. Watson-Brown (160199/13)—See DecisionWheeler v. Cbl & Associates Properties (150524/16)—See DecisionJustice Gerald LebovitsCangro v. Solomon (101413/17)—Case DisposedBivins v. Shapiro (651531/17)—See DecisionJustice Andrea MasleyMullin v. Wl Ross & Co. LLC (650535/17)—See DecisionJustice Mcmahon, Judith N.Bayview Loan Servicing v. Calma (850049/17)—Motn Disp. As Ind. Set/orderChristiana Trust v. Gwinn (850325/15)—Motn Disp. As Ind. Set/order57th St. Vacation Owners v. Clark (850140/17)—See Decision57th St. Vacation Owners v. O’Brien (850250/16)—See Decision57th St. Vacation Owners v. Savoie (850111/17)—See DecisionDitech Financial LLC F/k/a v. Marius (850062/17)—Case DisposedGmac Mortgage v. Chen (850069/11)—See DecisionGreen Tree Servicing LLC v. Silva (850290/14)—Case DisposedHsbc Bank USA v. Friedson (850008/16)—Case DisposedJpmorgan Chase Bank v. Erekosima (850017/14)—Case DisposedU.S. Bank Nat. v. Rosenfeld (850028/17)—See DecisionWells Fargo Bank v. Bankhead (850144/16)—Case DisposedWells Fargo Bank v. Phillips (850135/16)—Case DisposedJustice Manuel J. MendezHiseni v. Con Ed Co. (150577/17)—See DecisionJohnson v. Acumen Gmat LLC (158091/16)—See DecisionLashley v. NY Convention Center (152259/13)—See DecisionTower Ins. Co. of v. Artisan Silkscreen And (157754/15)—See DecisionJustice Eileen RakowerZejneli v. Sekons (107392/10)—See DecisionJustice Saunders, Verna L. (dcm)NYC v. Chen (452921/17)—Case DisposedNYC v. Didi (452928/17)—Case DisposedNYC v. Harte (452748/17)—Case DisposedJose Munoz v. NYC Police Dept. (100038/17)—See DecisionWall v. NYCH&HC (157966/16)—See Decision1330 Third Ave. Corp. v. NYC (153929/17)—See DecisionJimenez v. NYC (156801/15)—See DecisionJustice Saliann ScarpullaDebbie Pappas v. 38-40 LLC (650251/17)—Case DisposedFundamental Funding v. USA Wine Imports (653056/14)—See DecisionHigh End NY Electrical v. Kel-Mar Interiors Inc. (153181/16)—See DecisionKel-Mar Interiors, Inc. v. High End New York, Inc. (650702/16)—See DecisionLee v. Kalikow (150284/18)—Motion WithdrawnSolomon Capital LLC v. Ags Capital Group (652386/15)—See DecisionJustice J. SchecterLadd v. Mastercraft Masonry I, Inc. (159439/16)—See DecisionJustice Silvera, Adam (dcm)Henry v. New Jersey Transit Corp. (156496/15)—See DecisionSuazo v. King (155239/17)—Motion WithdrawnJustice Lisa Ann SokoloffDror v. NYCTA (160695/16)—See DecisionLopez v. NYC (152889/16)—See DecisionYan v. NYCTA (156760/13)—See DecisionJustice Carmen St. George292 Riverside Drive Owners v. Sabowitz (161528/15)—See DecisionAaa Windows & Doors Corp. v. NYCHA & The (101608/17)—Case DisposedMa v. NYC Dept of Health & Mental (101068/17)—Case DisposedNunez v. NYCHA (101332/17)—See DecisionRoche v. Been (451116/16)—See DecisionSchello v. Vital Rlty. Inc. (160715/15)—See DecisionWallace v. Maria Torres-Springer (101538/17)—Case DisposedWeitz v. Society of NY Hosp. (102037/12)—See DecisionJustice A. TischBarbieri v. NYC (156092/17)—See DecisionNYC v. Adebayo (452879/17)—See DecisionNYC v. Gallo (452884/17)—Case DisposedZeidel v. NYC (154849/15)—See DecisionBertrand v. Tko Transport LLC (160581/17)—See DecisionGaneles v. Madison Square Garden (159295/14)—See DecisionShakir v. NYC (150258/18)—See DecisionFrancisco Gonzalez v. NYC (151161/16)—See DecisionD.P. v. NYC Dept. of (158315/16)—Motion WithdrawnSmith v. NYC (159391/17)—Motion WithdrawnSurrogate’s CourtSurrogate MellaESTATE OF THOMAS GLOVER, A/K/A THOMAS GLOVER, JR., Deceased (04/0064/P/Q/R) — Settlements of causes of action for decedent’s conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death with certain defendants were approved, and the attorney’s compensation and disbursements were fixed, by an order of the Supreme Court, New York County dated June 12, 2017. The administrator has petitioned for leave to allocate and distribute the proceeds of the settlement.The restrictions on the letters of administration issued by this court are removed, and the administrator is authorized to collect the compromise proceeds with respect to defendants AP Green Trust, Plibrico Company now being administered through the Plibrico Company Trust, and Armstrong World Industries now being administered through the Armstrong World Industries Trust. The restrictions shall remain in full force and effect with regard to any remaining defendants and causes of action.The proposed allocation of ninety percent (90 percent) to conscious pain and suffering and ten percent (10 percent) to wrongful death is approved. The commissions of the administrator, Surena Glover, have been fixed. Pursuant to EPTL 4-1.1 and 5-4.4, and as agreed by the distributees, the balance of the proceeds shall be paid in equal shares to decedent’s three daughters, Surena Glover, Elaine Elizabeth Glover, and Barbara Glover-Whitted, and to the estate of decedent’s post-deceased son, Arthur Glover.Decree signed.Dated: February 22, 2018ESTATE OF JOON CHO, Deceased (16/4476/A/B/C) — The Administrator of decedent’s estate, Chong Duk Chong, seeks authority to compromise a cause of action for her son’s conscious pain and suffering and collect $50,000 in settlement of such cause of action. Petitioner also seeks to judicially settle her account and distribute the net proceeds to Niem Phan, decedent’s wife and sole distributee.On October 5, 2014, decedent was struck by a taxi cab on 5th Avenue at 34th Street in Manhattan. Decedent retained the law offices of Robert B. Marcus, P.C., to commence an action against the owner and driver for his conscious pain and suffering. Before the case was resolved, however, decedent died on July 8, 2016 from causes unrelated to the accident. Decedent was 31 years old.Under the circumstances presented, compromise of the cause of action is approved and the restrictions on the letters issued by this court are removed. The Administrator is authorized to collect the compromise proceeds and to execute such receipts and releases as may be required. Attorneys’ fees and disbursements are approved in the sums requested. Statutory commissions have been waived (SCPA 2307).The Administrator is authorized to pay Capital One Bank the sum of $652.68 for decedent’s credit card balance, to pay Barclaycard Rewards Mastercard the sum of $508.80, also for decedent’s credit card balance, to pay Central Funeral Home the sum of $2,975.00 as and for the balance owed for decedent’s funeral services, and to reimburse herself the sum of $7,331.00 for funeral expenses.The net balance of the proceeds shall be paid to decedent’s surviving spouse pursuant to EPLT 4-1.1(a)(2).Decree settling Administrator’s account signed.Dated: February 22, 2018ESTATE OF ANNABELLE PORCHE, A/K/A ANNABELLE PORSCHE, Deceased (12/3718/A/B/C) — The proposed compromise of the cause of action for decedent’s conscious pain and suffering is approved. The entire settlement proceeds shall be allocated to the cause of action for decedent’s conscious pain and suffering. The Administrator is authorized to collect the settlement proceeds and execute the necessary receipts and releases. Petitioner has waived statutory commissions (SCPA 2307). Attorneys fees and disbursements are approved in the amounts sought, as is payment in satisfaction of a Medicare lien. Petitioner’s request to approve reimbursement to herself for decedent’s funeral expenses is granted.Decree settling the Administrator’s account as to the settlement proceeds is signed.Dated: February 22, 2018ESTATE OF STANFORD BILLIPS, Deceased (13/4271/A) — In this petition for the settlement of the first and final account in the estate of Stanford Billips, petitioner, Kim Billips, asks the court to determine the validity of claims and the identity of decedent’s distributees.Alleged creditors listed on Schedule D of petitioner’s account were served with process directing them to show cause why their claims should not be disallowed and they defaulted. Thus, the court approves petitioner’s rejection of their claims The court also approves, in accordance with SCPA 1805, petitioner’s request to reimburse himself for money that was advanced by him personally to cover estate administration expenses.Based upon the proof submitted at a hearing before a court attorney-referee, and the report of the guardian ad litem appointed to represent unknown distributees, the court finds that the decedent is survived by his half-brother, petitioner Kim Billips, as his sole distributee (EPTL 4-1.1[a][5] and [b]). The court also finds that petitioner proved that decedent’s father, whose name and whereabouts are unknown, is disqualified from sharing in decedent’s estate based upon his failure to support decedent while decedent was under the age of 21 years (EPTL 4-1.4[a][1]).Moreover, the court is further satisfied that diligent and exhaustive efforts have been made, without success, to ascertain the existence of other distributees, that more than three years have elapsed since decedent’s death and that no claim has been made by any person other than the above mentioned distributees (SCPA 2225).The compensation of the guardian ad litem is fixed in the amount of $3,959.00.The net estate shall be distributed as set forth in the Decree.Decree signed.Dated: February 23, 2018ESTATE OF BORIS ANTSIS A/K/A BORIS SIROTENKO, Deceased (05/0256/M/N/O) — This is an application by the co-administrators of the estate of Boris Antsis, to distribute from their attorneys’ escrow account the proceeds of wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering causes of action. The causes of action arose from the decedent’s exposure to asbestos. The Supreme Court, New York County, by Order issued on September 12, 2017, approved the compromise of the causes of action and also approved the fees and disbursements of petitioner’s counsel.The petition is granted. The proceeds are allocated 60 percent to the cause of action for conscious pain and suffering and 40 percent to the cause of action for wrongful death. The restrictions contained in the letters issued to the co-administrators are removed and they are authorized to collect the settlement and execute the necessary receipts and releases with respect to defendant Armstrong World Industries now being administered through the Armstrong World Industries Trust. The restrictions shall remain in full force and effect with regard to any remaining defendants.The net proceeds shall be paid as directed in the Decree.The account is settled and the Decree signed.Dated: February 22, 2018ESTATE OF LAURA FINAMORE, Deceased (15/2537/A/B/C) — The proposed allocation and distribution of the wrongful death cause of action settled in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is approved. The entire settlement proceeds shall be allocated to the cause of action for decedent’s wrongful death. The Administrator is authorized to collect the settlement proceeds and execute the necessary receipts and releases. Petitioner has waived statutory commissions (SCPA 2307). Attorneys fees and disbursements are approved in the amounts sought.The net settlement proceeds shall be paid as set forth in the Decree.Decree settling the Administrator’s account as to the settlement proceeds is signed.Dated: February 22, 2018ESTATE OF RUTH ROSENBAUM, Deceased (11/901/C) — This is an application in the estate of Ruth Rosenbaum to withdraw funds deposited with the Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York pursuant to Decrees of this court, dated January 3, 2014 and August 1, 2016, for the benefit of unknown maternal distributees of decedent Ruth Rosenbaum.Based upon the proof submitted at a hearing before a court attorney-referee and in accordance with the recommendation of counsel for the Public Administrator (SCPA 1123[2][i][3]), the court finds that decedent was not survived by any maternal distributees. The court is satisfied that a diligent and exhaustive search has been made, without success, to ascertain the existence of other distributees, that more than three years have elapsed since decedent’s death, and that no claim to a distributive share in the estate has been made by any person other than the paternal distributees. It is, therefore, determined that there are no distributees other than decedent’s paternal distributees (SCPA 2225).Accordingly, the Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York, after deducting fees and charges as provided by law, is directed to pay the funds on deposit plus accrued interest in equal shares to Stanley Weinberg, Ellis Weinberg, Stanley Weinberg, David Lee Weinberg, and Kenneth Juvelier, as Administrator of the Estate of Rosalyn Weinberg Juvelier.Settle decree with a provision for fixing the compensation of counsel for the Public Administrator.Dated: February 23, 2018ESTATE OF ABRAHAM ABRAMOVSKY, Deceased (07/2675/A/B/C) — The petition of Aviva Abramovsky, administrator of the estate of Abraham Abramovsky, is granted to the extent petitioner seeks: (1) leave to compromise a cause of action for wrongful death, (2) allocation of 100 percent of the net proceeds to the cause of action for wrongful death, and (3) settlement of her account. Leave to discontinue the action for conscious pain and suffering is granted.The fees of petitioners’ attorneys and their disbursements are fixed. Petitioner, having waived commissions, is authorized to distribute the balance of proceeds equally among decedent’s four children, including herself, individually (see EPTL 5-4.4).Accounting decree signed.Dated: February 22, 2018Bronx CountyFirst DepartmentSUPREME COURTJustice M. Brigantti-HughesGreen Tree Servicing LLC v. Rahman (35312/14)—Pd – Motion GrantedHrb Mortgage Hldgs. LLC v. Campbell (35250/13)—Pd – Motion GrantedM.P. An Infant Under The Age v. Jewish Board of Family (26902/17)—Motion DeniedReyes v. Walton Apts. (25068/14)—Motion DeniedBank of America v. Ortiz (32807/16)—Pd – Motion GrantedBank of NY Mellon v. Edwards (35452/15)—Pd – Restored in Regular OrderBennett v. G & M Rlty. (22852/17)—Motion DeniedCitibank v. Alsuran (32908/16)—Case DisposedCitimortgage Inc v. Arce (380810/11)—Case DisposedDeutsche Bank Nat. Trust v. Muzyka (35994/14)—Case DisposedDuncan v. Nash (300896/17)—Motion Granted on A DefaultEstate of Eleanor V. v. Tully (27260/16)—Motion GrantedHsbc Bank USA v. Almayda (35924/15)—Case DisposedHsbc Bank USA v. Regacho (35401/13)—Pd – Motion GrantedJpmorgan Chase Bank v. Barhak (381178/11)—Motion GrantedLiu v. Bronx Merchant Funding (21005/14)—Motion DeniedU.S. Bank Nat. v. Dingle (380248/14)—Pd – Motion GrantedU.S. Bank Nat. v. Hosier (32962/16)—Pd – Motion GrantedViera v. Rafael Sarraf (300683/10)—Pd – Restored in Regular OrderWells Fargo Bank v. Warren (35669/15)—Pd – Motion GrantedWilmington Savings Fund v. Unknown Heirs At Law of (32937/16)—Motion GrantedWilson v. Progressive Mgt. (26179/14)—WithdrawnJustice Joseph E. CapellaWatson v. Daniel Popowitz (23928/13)—Case DisposedJustice Doris GonzalezFed. Nat. Mortgage v. Rosenberg (32417/16)—Pd – Motion DecidedFremont Investment And Loan v. Harris (380610/07)—Pd – Restored in Regular OrderJustice Doris M. Gonzalez – StpBello v. Zmigrodski (302976/14)—WithdrawnBurgos v. Ayinla (301263/14)—Special Preference GrantedJustice Robert T. JohnsonYoung v. Wiese (20613/09)—Motion GrantedDeutsche Bank Nat. Trust v. Reyes (35516/14)—Case DisposedMelvin v. Motor Vehicle Accident (36072/17)—Motion DeniedJustice Laura G. DouglasA M v. Dasary (300566/16)—WithdrawnBueno v. Angerosa Jr (23893/16)—Decision RenderedBynum v. Manu (301575/16)—WithdrawnCampbell v. Campbell (20048/14)—Decision RenderedCastro v. Yonkers Racing Corp. (303320/16)—Decision RenderedCourtney v. Christian Prophett (302797/16)—WithdrawnDejesus v. The Doe Fund Inc (302876/15)—Decision RenderedEstrada v. Morago-Lopez (23048/17)—Motion DeniedFerreyra Alvarez v. Ginsburg Dev. (26183/15)—Decision RenderedGomez v. Diego Beekman Mutual Housing (23661/16)—Decision RenderedGrant v. Fed. Express Corp. (21329/16)—Decision RenderedGuerrero v. Frazier (22388/16)—Decision RenderedKaur v. Batista (20593/16)—Decision RenderedLara-Astudillo v. Neujahr (26500/15)—WithdrawnMarzan v. L Two G-O Inc (20213/16)—Motion Granted/extMcCluskey v. Gomez (300248/12)—Motion Granted/extMontes v. New Adventure Mini Market (20388/16)—Motion GrantedNYC Fire Sprinkler v. Cjs Industries Inc. Aka Cjs (24390/15)—Decision RenderedPorras v. Rodriguez (304082/15)—WithdrawnSessions v. Robinett (304518/15)—Decision RenderedShelton v. Brite-Way Leasing Corp (26087/15)—Motion Granted/extSimmons v. Tri State Foods Inc (303501/15)—Motion Granted/extTurnbull v. Shervin Mgt LLC (300188/15)—Decision RenderedValenzuela v. Sperber (26307/16)—Motion DeniedWiley v. Esi New York, Inc. (22443/13)—Decision RenderedWilliams v. Bragg (26068/16)—Motion DeniedWilliams v. Corrao Trucking, Inc. (27503/16)—Decision RenderedJustice Lucindo Suarez-Comp.LitigationDiaz v. 22 Bndo LLC (28720/16)—See Memo DecisionJustice LaTia W. MartinMathison v. Brown (5757/15)—Pd – Motion WithdrawnJustice Douglas E. McKeonHernandez v. Scannapieco (24905/17)—Motion GrantedJustice Donald A. MilesMitchell v. Thomas (26015/17)—Case DisposedJustice Donna M. MillsDownie v. Johnson (22186/15)—Motion GrantedPacheco v. F&Y Deli Grocery Corp (27423/17)—Motion Granted on A DefaultBarracato v. Sp Plus Corp. (306525/14)—Motion DeniedRivera v. Usta (301669/16)—Special Preference GrantedLeveron v. Prana Growth Fund I (302203/15)—Motion Granted on A DefaultJustice Julia RodriguezFlores v. Beechwood Rb Shorehaven (303269/16)—Motion DeniedVasquez v. Morgan Group LLC (22655/15)—Special Preference GrantedVfc Partners v. Acquafredda Enterprises (380880/11)—Motion DeniedVfc Partners 19 v. Acquafredda Enterprises LLC (380881/11)—Motion DeniedJ.G. Wentworth Originations v. John Hancock Life Ins. (36479/17)—Case DisposedJustice Norma RuizCollymore v. Hds Funding Management (26065/17)—Motion GrantedIndymac Bank v. Pishchik (380834/07)—Pd – Motion GrantedJoseph v. Parker Hatzlacha (23818/17)—Pd – Motion DeniedLora v. 2075-2081 Wallace Ave. (21526/16)—Decision RenderedNew South Ins. Co. v. Johnson-Parker (25745/17)—Motion Granted/extOkeke v. Poma (30121/17)—Motion GrantedRichardson v. Balaj (307107/13)—Motion GrantedV. v. Sky NY LLC (22519/17)—Motion DeniedCarter v. Motor Vehicle Accident (28594/16)—Motion DeniedCelaj v. Virga (24513/13)—Motion GrantedChisholm v. Chisholm (25265/16)—Motion DeniedHazell v. United Odd Fellow (26494/15)—Motion DeniedHerrera-Lopez v. Motor Vehicle Accident (24868/16)—Motion GrantedBarbaro Auto Repairs, Inc. v. NYS Dept. (260288/16)—Motion Deniedin The Matter of The v. Int’l Leadership (26119/16)—Motion DeniedRamos v. Wong (16826/03)—Motion DeniedRodriguez v. Napa Rlty. Corp. (301520/14)—Decision RenderedAppiah v. Leake And Watts Services, Inc. (24567/17)—Case DisposedDiallo v. Taveras (28320/16)—Motion Granted on A DefaultDuran v. John (24543/17)—Motion GrantedGc 1700 v. Clear Wireless (302409/11)—Decision RenderedJustice Lucindo SuarezUs Bank v. Bain (380230/11)—Pd – Motion DecidedRossberg v. Apostoli (302072/12)—WithdrawnJustice Fernando TapiaState Farm Ins. Co. v. Penamieses-Desoto (28173/16)—Case DisposedJustice Elizabeth TaylorRowl v. Prpr Restaurant, Inc. (307419/13)—Motion DeniedJustice K. L. Thompson, Jr.Wells Fargo USA Hldgs., Inc. v. Rose (32386/17)—Case Disposed
