PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Blake Wingate, ap — Motion by assigned counsel to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 16, 2015, and for the assignment of new counsel. The appellant’s motion for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for assignment of counsel was granted on October 12, 2017, and the following named attorney was assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq.The Legal Aid Society199 Water Street – 5th FloorNew York, New York 10038Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, and the former assigned counsel is directed to turn over all papers in the action to new counsel herein assigned; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to County Law §722 the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:Herbert Kellner, Esq.The Law Firm of Guttmann & Kellner, P.C.25 West Main StreetSmithtown, NY 11787and it is further,ORDERED that upon service of a copy of this decision and order on motion upon it, the Department of Probation is hereby authorized and directed to provide assigned counsel with a copy of the presentence report prepared in connection with the defendant’s sentencing, including the recommendation sheet and any prior reports on the defendant which are incorporated or referred to in the report, and to provide additional copies to this Court upon demand; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged; assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with this Court’s rules (see 22 NYCRR 670.1, et seq.) and written directions; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order on motion upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Priscilla Hall, JJ.MATTER of John Cucci, Jr., a suspended attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 2518207) — Motion by John Cucci, Jr., for reinstatement to the Bar as an attorney and counselor-at-law. Mr. Cucci was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on March 3, 1993. By decision and order on application of this Court dated November 20, 2012, the application of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District to impose reciprocal discipline pursuant to former 22 NYCRR 691.3 was held in abeyance, pending a hearing upon Mr. Cucci’s demand pursuant to former 22 NYCRR 691.3(d), and the issues raised were referred to the Honorable Kenneth A. Davis, as Special Referee, to hear and report. By opinion and order of this Court dated January 28, 2015, Mr. Cucci was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, based on the discipline taken against him by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion for reinstatement is held in abeyance and the matter is referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to investigate and report on the character and fitness of John Cucci, Jr., to practice law.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and HALL, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Lasalle, JJ.MATTER of Amy Margaret Shinn, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 5147434) — Application by Amy Margaret Shinn, who was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on October 9, 2013, to change her name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law to Amy Margaret Messer.Upon the papers filed in support of the application, it isORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall change the applicant’s name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law from Amy Margaret Shinn to Amy Margaret Messer, effective immediately.SCHEINKMAN, J.P., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Lasalle, JJ.MATTER of Jessica Dahlin Owens, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 4177887) — Application by Jessica Dahlin Owens, who was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on December 10, 2003, to change her name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law to Jessica Dahlin Hennessey.Upon the papers filed in support of the application, it isORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall change the applicant’s name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law from Jessica Dahlin Owens to Jessica Dahlin Hennessey, effective immediately.SCHEINKMAN, J.P., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Lasalle, JJ.MATTER of Alexandra Michele Farin, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 5499900) — Application by Alexandra Michele Farin, who was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on May 3, 2017, to change her name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law to Alexandra Michele Vaccaro.Upon the papers filed in support of the application, it isORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall change the applicant’s name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law from Alexandra Michele Farin to Alexandra Michele Vaccaro, effective immediately.SCHEINKMAN, J.P., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.C., Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Glory C. Espinal, res, v. Dwayne A. Burton, ap — Appeal by Dwayne A. Burton from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated November 20, 2017. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Barry E. Thomas, Esq., dated February 6, 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:Helene Bernstein, Esq.44 Court Street, #905Brooklyn, NY 11201917-748-9854and 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 1, 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.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Leventhal, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Donald Butler, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 16, 2017, as a poor person, and for the assignment of counsel.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted; 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 appellant’s and the respondent’s briefs; the parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other; and it is further,ORDERED that the stenographer of the trial court is directed promptly to make, certify, and file two transcripts of the proceedings of any pretrial hearings, of the plea of guilty or of the trial, and of the imposition of sentence in this action, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (see 22 NYCRR 671.9); and it is further,ORDERED that in the event that the case was tried to a conclusion before a jury, the stenographer shall also make, certify, and file two transcripts of the minutes of proceedings during jury selection; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of the trial court shall furnish one certified transcript of each of the proceedings set forth above to the appellant’s counsel, without charge (see CPL 460.70); assigned counsel is directed to turn over those transcripts to the respondent when counsel serves the appellant’s brief on the respondent; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the stenographer has already prepared a copy of any of the minutes for a codefendant, then the Clerk of the trial court is directed to reproduce a copy thereof for assigned counsel; and it is further,ORDERED that upon service of a copy of this decision and order on motion upon it, the Department of Probation is hereby authorized and directed to provide assigned counsel with a copy of the presentence report prepared in connection with the appellant’s sentencing, including the recommendation sheet and any prior reports on the appellant which are incorporated in or referred to in the report, and to provide additional copies to this Court upon demand; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event an issue as to the legality, propriety, or excessiveness of the sentence is raised on appeal, or if assigned counsel cites or relies upon the probation report in a brief or motion in any other way, counsel shall provide a complete copy of such report and any attachments to the Court and the District Attorney’s office prior to the filing of such brief or motion; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to County Law §722 the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:Paul Skip Laisure, Esq.Appellate Advocates111 John Street – 9th FloorNew York, New York 10038and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged; assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with this Court’s rules (see 22 NYCRR 670.1, et seq.) and written directions; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the file has been sealed, it is hereby unsealed for the limited purpose of allowing assigned counsel or his or her representative access to the record for the purpose of preparing the appeal; such access shall include permission to copy the papers insofar as they pertain to the appellant; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order on motion upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEVENTHAL, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Leventhal, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Christian Acuna, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se pursuant to CPL 460.30 for an extension of time to take an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 1, 2017, for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, and for the assignment of counsel.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s moving papers are deemed to constitute a timely notice of appeal; 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 appellant’s and the respondent’s briefs; the parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other; and it is further,ORDERED that the stenographer of the trial court is directed promptly to make, certify, and file two transcripts of the proceedings of any pretrial hearings, of the plea of guilty or of the trial, and of the imposition of sentence in this action, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (see 22 NYCRR 671.9); and it is further,ORDERED that in the event that the case was tried to a conclusion before a jury, the stenographer shall also make, certify, and file two transcripts of the minutes of proceedings during jury selection; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of the trial court shall furnish one certified transcript of each of the proceedings set forth above to the appellant’s counsel, without charge (see CPL 460.70); assigned counsel is directed to turn over those transcripts to the respondent when counsel serves the appellant’s brief on the respondent; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the stenographer has already prepared a copy of any of the minutes for a codefendant, then the Clerk of the trial court is directed to reproduce a copy thereof for assigned counsel; and it is further,ORDERED that upon service of a copy of this decision and order on motion upon it, the Department of Probation is hereby authorized and directed to provide assigned counsel with a copy of the presentence report prepared in connection with the appellant’s sentencing, including the recommendation sheet and any prior reports on the appellant which are incorporated in or referred to in the report, and to provide additional copies to this Court upon demand; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event an issue as to the legality, propriety, or excessiveness of the sentence is raised on appeal, or if assigned counsel cites or relies upon the probation report in a brief or motion in any other way, counsel shall provide a complete copy of such report and any attachments to the Court and the District Attorney’s office prior to the filing of such brief or motion; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to County Law §722 the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:Paul Skip Laisure, Esq.Appellate Advocates111 John Street – 9th FloorNew York, New York 10038and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged; assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with this Court’s rules (see 22 NYCRR 670.1, et seq.) and written directions; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the file has been sealed, it is hereby unsealed for the limited purpose of allowing assigned counsel or his or her representative access to the record for the purpose of preparing the appeal; such access shall include permission to copy the papers insofar as they pertain to the appellant; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order on motion upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEVENTHAL, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Leventhal, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.MATTER of Christina Araya, res, v. Richard S. Monzone, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to prosecute appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated August 4, 2017, and October 10, 2017, respectively, as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the 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 children, 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 pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), the appeals in the above-entitled proceedings shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this Court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, if there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this decision and order on motion; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), within 30 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this Court one of the following:(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of the Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeals; or(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation stating that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof, and the date by which the transcript is expected; or(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeals; and it is further,ORDERED that if none of the actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4), above has been taken within 30 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, the Clerk of this Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeals to show cause why the appeals should or should not be dismissed.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEVENTHAL, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Rivera, Dillon, Balkin, and Chambers, JJ.MATTER of No Name Given D. (Anonymous). New York Foundling Hospital, petitioner- res, Melissa D. (Anonymous), res-res — Appeal by Melissa D. from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County, dated December 12, 2017. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Anthony DeGuerre, Esq,. dated February 7, 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:Anthony DeGuerre, Esq.P.O. Box 140038Staten Island, NY 10314347-495-7554ORDERED 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 assigned counsel 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 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 order; and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this order, 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 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 this 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., RIVERA, DILLON, BALKIN and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.Remedy Hospitality Group, LLC, res, v. Street Five 116, LLC, ap — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 60-day enlargement of time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 24, 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 to the extent that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 7, 2018, the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.MATTER of Baby Boy N. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, petitioner- respondent petitioner; Albert N. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Alberta N. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, petitioner- respondent petitioner; Albert N. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 2)MATTER of Albert A. N. (Anonymous), Jr. SCO Family of Services, petitioner- respondent petitioner; Albert N. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 3) B-26011/12) — Appeals by Albert N. from three orders of the Family Court, Queens County, all dated October 4, 2016. The appellant’s brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court on February 7, 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 appeals shall be served and filed.By Roman, J.P.; Lasalle, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.Ye Wu, res, v. Xiao Qing Li, ap — Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 23, 2017, on the ground that it has been rendered academic or, in the alternative, to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief. Cross motion by the appellant to impose a sanction upon the respondent and for an award of costs.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the cross motion, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is granted, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 19, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,ORDERED that the cross motion is denied.ROMAN, J.P., LASALLE, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Dillon, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.Capital One Taxi Medallion Finance, res, v. JEB Management Corp., def, Ruben Elberg, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se to enlarge the time to perfect appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated November 7, 2016, and an order of the same court dated November 25, 2016, and to waive compliance with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 670.10.2(f) regarding certification of the record on appeal. Cross motion by the respondent, inter alia, to dismiss the appeals for failure to timely perfect.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the cross motion, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeals is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until March 2, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeals and the appellant’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 or appendix on the appeals is denied with leave to renew by a motion made simultaneously with the perfection of the appeals; and it is further,ORDERED that the cross motion is denied.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DILLON, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Dillon, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.Robert McGregor, ap, v. Arnold McGregor, res — Motion by the appellant to extend the time to settle the trial transcript on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 7, 2017, and to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s time to provide the respondent with notice of proposed amendments to the transcript pursuant to CPLR 5525(c)(1) is extended until March 2, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that 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.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DILLON, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Dillon, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.Angel Santana, ap, v. Maria Fernandez, res — 2017-07707Beatriz Onate, appellant,v Maria Fernandez, respondent.(Index No. 2165/16) Motion by the appellants to enlarge the time to perfect appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 7, 2017, and April 3, 2017, respectively, and to consolidate the appeals.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect appeals is granted, and the time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until April 19, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to consolidate the appeals is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appeals will be calendared together and will be argued or submitted on the same date.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DILLON, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Miller, Nelson and Iannacci, JJ.Felice Charasz, etc., res, v. Diana Rozenblum, etc., ap — (Action No 1) Diana Rozenblum Charasz, ap, v. Felice Charasz, etc., res — (Action No. 2)— 2017-07772Felice Charasz, etc., respondent,v Diana Rozenblum, etc., appellant.(Index No. 202115/10) Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 10, 2016, and an order of the same court dated June 8, 2017. Cross motion by the respondent to dismiss the appeal from the judgment for failure to timely perfect.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 motion is granted, and the time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until March 19, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the cross motion is denied.RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Austin, J.P.; Roman, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ.Roberto Torres, claimant, v. State of New York, def — (Claim No. 125662) — Motion by Roberto Torres for leave to file a late notice of appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims dated September 27, 2017, and for poor person relief.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for leave to file a late notice of appeal is denied without prejudice to filing a notice of appeal in accordance with CPLR 5513; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied as academic.AUSTIN, J.P., ROMAN, SGROI and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Sgroi, J.P.; Miller, Nelson and Iannacci, JJ.RSA Catering, LLC, res-ap, v. Scott Schneider, appellant-res, et al., def — Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 20, 2017. By order to show cause dated December 7, 2017, the parties were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the cross appeal taken on behalf of the defendants by Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara Wolf & Carone, LLP, in the above-entitled action on the ground that Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara Wolf & Carone, LLP, did not have authority to file a notice of cross appeal on the defendants’ behalf (see CPLR 321). Motion by RSA Catering, LLC, to correct the notice of cross appeal to reflect that it is the proper party cross appellant.Now, upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the motion by RSA Catering, LLC, and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the cross appeal is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion by RSA Catering, LLC, is granted (see Matter of Tagliaferri, 1 NY3d 605; CPLR 2001).SGROI, J.P., MILLER, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Derrick Teaque, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to serve and file a supplemental brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 1, 2016, and to be furnished with copies of the typewritten transcripts of the proceedings, if any.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the District Attorney shall file the transcripts of the proceedings, if any, and the Clerk of this Court shall deliver those transcripts to the person in charge of the institution wherein the appellant is incarcerated for examination by the appellant; the transcripts shall be returned to this Court when the appellant files the supplemental brief or informs this Court that no supplemental brief will be filed; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant shall file nine copies of the supplemental brief and serve one copy on the District Attorney.Upon delivering the transcripts to the institution, the Clerk of this Court shall advise the appellant of the date by which the transcripts are to be returned and the supplemental brief filed.BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Dillon, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Obdul Anthony, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to serve and file a supplemental brief on an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered March 11, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DILLON, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Miller, Nelson and Iannacci, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Steven Powell, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se to enlarge the time to serve and file a supplemental brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 2, 2014.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied as academic as the pro se supplemental brief was timely served and filed.RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Dillon, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Danny Phipps, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to serve and file a supplemental brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 16, 2015, and to be furnished with copies of the typewritten transcripts of the proceedings, if any.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the District Attorney shall file the transcripts of the proceedings, if any, and the Clerk of this Court shall deliver those transcripts to the person in charge of the institution wherein the appellant is incarcerated for examination by the appellant; the transcripts shall be returned to this Court when the appellant files the supplemental brief or informs this Court that no supplemental brief will be filed; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant shall file nine copies of the supplemental brief and serve one copy on the District Attorney.Upon delivering the transcripts to the institution, the Clerk of this Court shall advise the appellant of the date by which the transcripts are to be returned and the supplemental brief filed.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DILLON, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Dillon, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Maria Caro, ap — (S.C. I. No. N10261-10) — Motion by the appellant’s assigned counsel on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 17, 2011, in effect, to be relieved of the assignment 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 March 19, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion by assigned counsel 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).SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DILLON, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Roman, J.P.; Lasalle, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., respondent v. Lorenzo Smith, ap — Motion by Bennet Goodman, counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered June 2, 2014, to be relieved of the assignment on the ground that the appellant has abandoned the appeal by failing to respond to communications by assigned counsel. By order to show cause dated November 28, 2017, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had abandoned the appeal, and assigned counsel’s motion was held in abeyance in the interim.Now, upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of assigned counsel’s motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel’s motion is granted.ROMAN, J.P., LASALLE, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Roman, J.P.; Lasalle, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Walmer Salmeron, ap — (S.C.I. No. 684/15) — Motion by N. Scott Banks, counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered October 9, 2015, to be relieved on the ground that the appellant has abandoned the appeal by failing to respond to communications by assigned counsel. By order to show cause dated November 29, 2017, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had abandoned the appeal, and assigned counsel’s motion was held in abeyance in the interim.Now, upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of assigned counsel’s motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel’s motion is granted.ROMAN, J.P., LASALLE, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Austin, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Donovan Belcher, ap — Motion by counsel assigned to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 11, 2015, in effect, to be relieved of the assignment on the ground that the appellant has abandoned the appeal by failing to respond to communications by assigned counsel. By order to show cause dated December 13, 2017, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had abandoned the appeal, and assigned counsel’s motion was held in abeyance in the interim.Now, upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of assigned counsel’s motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel’s motion is granted.DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, MILLER and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Leventhal, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Lamar Samuel, ap — Motion by counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 28, 2016, in effect, to be relieved on the ground that the appellant has abandoned the appeal by failing to respond to communications by assigned counsel. By order to show cause dated December 7, 2017, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had abandoned the appeal, and assigned counsel’s motion was held in abeyance in the interim.Now, upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of assigned counsel’s motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel’s motion is granted.MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Roman, J.P.; Lasalle, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Pedrito Sanchez, ap — Motion by Seymour W. James, Jr., counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 30, 2015, in effect, to be relieved of the assignment on the ground that the appellant has abandoned the appeal by failing to respond to communications by assigned counsel. By order to show cause dated November 24, 2017, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had abandoned the appeal, and assigned counsel’s motion was held in abeyance in the interim.Now, upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of assigned counsel’s motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel’s motion is granted.ROMAN, J.P., LASALLE, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Roman, J.P.; Lasalle, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Engelbert Abad, ap — Appeal by Engelbert Abad from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered January 12, 2016. By order to show cause dated November 28, 2017, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had abandoned the appeal.Now, upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed.ROMAN, J.P., LASALLE, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Duffy and Lasalle, JJ.PEOPLE, res, v. Kevin OBrien, ap — Motion by Laurette D. Mulry, counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated May 5, 2017, in effect, to be relieved on the ground that the order was entered upon the consent of the appellant. By order to show cause dated November 28, 2017, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the order was entered upon the consent of the appellant, and assigned counsel’s motion was held in abeyance in the interim. Separate motion by Laurette D. Mulry to be relieved.Now, upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of assigned counsel’s motions and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel’s motions are granted.CHAMBERS, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Dillon, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Steve Mendez, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 16, 2015, as a poor person, and for the assignment of counsel. By order to show cause dated September 18, 2017, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the notice of appeal from the judgment was untimely, and the appellant’s motion, in effect, was held in abeyance in the interim.Now, upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the appellant’s motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed (see CPL 460.30); and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s motion is denied as academic.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DILLON, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Roman, J.P.; Lasalle, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.MATTER of Louis E. Goebel, etc., deceased. Susan J. Rera, etc., petitioner-appellant; Alba Baris Goebel, res-res — (File No. 911/11) — 2017-03236MATTER of Louis E. Goebel, etc., deceased.Susan J. Rera, etc., petitioner-appellant;Alba Baris Goebel, respondent-respondent.(File No. 911/11) 2017-05751, 2017-05752MATTER of Louis E. Goebel, etc., deceased.Susan J. Rera, etc., petitioner-appellant;Alba Baris Goebel, respondent-respondent.(File No. 911/11)MATTER of Louis E. Goebel, etc., deceased.Susan J. Rera, etc., petitioner-respondent;Alba Baris Goebel, respondent-respondent;Frank D’Onofrio, nonparty-appellant;Helen Depolito, nonparty-respondent.(File No. 911/11) Motion by the nonparty-appellant to stay enforcement of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Orange County, dated April 24, 2017, to consolidate that appeal with appeals from a decree of the same court dated August 14, 2014, and three orders of the same court dated October 13, 2015, March 10, 2017, and April 24, 2017, respectively, and to enlarge the time to perfect the appeals. By order to show cause dated December 1, 2017, the parties were directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal from the order dated April 24, 2017, on the ground that the nonparty-appellant was not aggrieved by that order, and the motion by the nonparty-appellant was held in abeyance in the interim.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 granted, and the appeal from the order dated April 24, 2017, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,ORDERED that the branches of the motion which are to enlarge the time to perfect the appeals from the decree and the orders dated October 13, 2015, March 10, 2017, and April 24, 2017, under Appellate Division Docket Number 2017-05752, are granted, and the time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until April 16, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion by the nonparty-appellant is otherwise denied as academic.ROMAN, J.P., LASALLE, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.MATTER of Markell W. (Anonymous), ap — Appeal by the appellant on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, dated July 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 time for the respondent to serve and file a brief on the appeal is enlarged until March 19, 2018.MATTER of Yu Wei, res, v. Robert Mathews, ap — Appeal by Robert Mathews from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (IDV Part), dated January 23, 2018. The appellant’s brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court on February 8, 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 child in the above-entitled appeal shall be served and filed.Doris Stepkowski, ap, v. Holy Trinity Diocesan High School res — Application by the respondents pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until April 9, 2018, to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 26, 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 to the extent that the respondents’ time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 26, 2018, the respondents’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.MATTER of Joseph J. Gansburg, ap, v. Baila Rivkah Behrman, res — V-7113-15/16B) — Appeals by Joseph J. Gansburg from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County, both dated June 19, 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 March 12, 2018.By Sgroi, J.P.; Miller, Nelson and Iannacci, JJ.RSA Catering, LLC, res, v. Scott Schneider ap — Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 12, 2017. By order to show cause dated December 11, 2017, the parties were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal taken on behalf of the defendants by Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara Wolf & Carone, LLP, from the order entered May 12, 2017, in the above-entitled action on the ground that Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara Wolf & Carone, LLP, did not have authority to file a notice of appeal on the defendants’ behalf.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 (see CPLR 321).SGROI, J.P., MILLER, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.Wells Fargo Bank, NA, res, v. Lee Salzmann, appellant def — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 60-day enlargement of time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated July 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 to the extent that the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 26, 2018, the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.MATTER of Rene S. (Anonymous), ap — Appeal by Rene S. from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated July 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’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 March 28, 2018.Hamilton Equity Group, LLC, etc., res, v. Youssef Saadia, etc. ap, et al., def — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 14, 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.Ragbir Singh res, v. Nilesh R. Patel appellants def — Application by the appellants Nilesh R. Patel, Ratilal Patel, Ketankumar Shah, Khalid Sherani, Nazmul Kabir and Jamaica Hospital Medical Center to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 31, 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 appellants Nilesh R. Patel, Ratilal Patel, Ketankumar Shah, Khalid Sherani, Nazmul Kabir and Jamaica Hospital Medical Center is marked withdrawn.Leszek Liskiewicz plf, v. 1000 Dean, LLC, res, Flea Holdings, LLC, ap, — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 18, 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 Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.Igor Groysman, res, v. AWI, Inc. def, Macron & Cowhey, P.C. ap — Motion by the appellants, inter alia, to stay a framed issued hearing in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 20, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.US Bank National Association, etc., res, v. Soledad Murillo, appellant def — Motion by the appellant to stay all proceedings in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 3, 2015, and September 8, 2015, respectively.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Iannacci, J.PEOPLE, etc., plf, v. Theodore Best, def — Application by the defendant pursuant to CPL 450.15 and 460.15 for a certificate granting leave to appeal to this Court from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 22, 2017, which has been referred to me for determination.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the application is denied.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.Pierre R. Jean Baptiste, etc., res, v. Ditmas Park, LLC ap — Motion by the appellants to stay the trial in the above-entitled action, pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 25, 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 dismissed for failure to provide proof of service of the motion according to the terms of the order to show cause.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.Dyana Elusma res, v. Jerry T. Jackson ap — Motion by the appellants to stay the trial in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 20, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.Christine Patouhas, res, v. Philip Patouhas, ap — Motion by the appellant to stay enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 2, 2018, pending hearing and determination of an appeal therefrom.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.Juana Rodriguez res, v. Rego II Borrower LLC, def, East Bay Mechanical Corp., ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 26, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Westchester Foundation for Disabled, Inc., res, v. Radio Circle Ventures, LLC, et al., ap — Application to withdraw appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 7,2016, and September 29, 2016, respectively.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated February 5, 2018, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeals are deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.Emmaniel Aponte, res, v. Harry Cazares ap — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 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.Christine McDonald, res, v. Pllumb Bajraktari, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 22, 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.Luz L. Escobar res, v. Maurizio Cantatore, et al, ap — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 12, 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.Lana C. Young-Sartori, res, v. Ronald M. Sartori, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 9, 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.Theresa Demonte, res, v. Selden Wings, Inc., etc., appellant res — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 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.Karlene White, plf-res, v. JMM Springnex, LLC defendants- respondents def, R & R Restorations, Inc., ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 2, 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.Rony Pierre res, v. Torell Vassell ap — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 20, 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.Alina Zhulina, res, v. Brian Foley, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 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 appeal is marked withdrawn.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Barros and Christopher, JJ.Margaret Campbell, ap, v. Bradco Supply Company res — Motion by Margaret Campbell, in effect, to deem a notice of appeal dated January 23, 2017, to be from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 25, 2016, to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal, and, in effect, to recall and vacate so much of a decision and order on motion of this Court dated July 18, 2017, as dismissed her appeal from an order of the same court dated December 26, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the notice of appeal dated January 23, 2017, is deemed to be from the order dated October 25, 2016, the time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 19, 2018, so much of the decision and order on motion of this Court dated July 18, 2017, as dismissed the appeal from the order dated December 26, 2016, is recalled and vacated, and the appeal from the order dated October 25, 2016, will be prosecuted under Appellate Division Docket No. 2018-01805.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Leventhal, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ.Bank of New York Mellon, etc., res, v. Krista Selig, ap — Motion by the appellant to stay the sale of the subject premises pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 25, 2015.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.Wells Fargo, res, v. Francisca Soetan def, JZS Capital Group Corp., ap — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until March 12, 2018, to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 4, 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 to the extent that the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until February 27, 2018, the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Jose E. Batista, ap — (S.C.I. No 55N/16) — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, rendered March 25, 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 appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged, and the reply brief submitted to the Clerk of this Court is accepted for filing and deemed timely served.Sobeida Castro, ap, v. Pfizer, Inc., def, Mylan, Inc. res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 31, 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 appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged, and the reply brief submitted to the Clerk of the Court is accepted for filing and deemed timely served.LaSalle Bank, NA, res, v. Wayne Lawrence, appellant def — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 10-day enlargement of time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 28, 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 to the extent that the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until February 22, 2018, the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.By Leventhal, J.P.; Chambers, Miller and Duffy, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Rasheen Everett, ap — On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the decision and order on motion of this Court dated February 2, 2018, in the above-entitled case is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order on motion is substituted therefor:Motion by the appellant pro se to relieve counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered December 5, 2013, and for assignment of new counsel. Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief. The appellant’s motion to dispense with printing and for the assignment of counsel was granted on February 24, 2014, and the following named attorney was assigned to prosecute the appeal:Paul Skip Laisure, Esq.Appellate Advocates111 John Street – 9th FloorNew York, New York 10038Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted; previously assigned counsel is directed to turn over all papers in the action to new counsel herein assigned; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to County Law §722 the following named attorney is assigned to prosecute the appeal:Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq.The Legal Aid Society199 Water Street – 5th FloorNew York, New York 10038and it is further,ORDERED that upon service of a copy of this decision and order on motion upon it, the Department of Probation is hereby authorized and directed to provide assigned counsel with a copy of the pre-sentence report prepared in connection with the defendant’s sentencing, including the recommendation sheet and any prior reports on the defendant which are incorporated or referred to in the report, and to provide additional copies to this Court upon demand, and to provide additional copies to this Court upon demand; and it is further,ORDERED that the brief filed by former assigned counsel is stricken and new assigned counsel shall serve and file a replacement brief expeditiously in accordance with this Court’s rules (see 22 NYCRR 670.1 et seq.) and written directions; and it is further,ORDERED that the application is denied as academic.LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHAMBERS, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Leventhal, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.PEOPLE, res, v. James Flynn, ap — On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the decision and order on motion of this Court dated February 2, 2018, in the above-entitled case is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order on motion is substituted therefor:Motion by the appellant for leave to prosecute an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 23, 2017, as a poor person, and for the assignment of counsel.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person is denied as unnecessary, as the appellant was granted leave to proceed as a poor person in the Supreme Court and, pursuant to Correction Law 168-n (3), his status as a poor person continues on appeal; 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 appellant’s and the respondent’s briefs; the parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other; and it is further,ORDERED that the stenographer of the trial court is directed promptly to make, certify, and file two transcripts of the proceedings of any hearing held in connection with the order dated August 23, 2017, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (see 22 NYCRR 671.9); and it is further,ORDERED that the clerk of the trial court shall furnish one certified transcript of each of the proceedings to the appellant’s counsel, without charge (see CPLR 1102[b]); assigned counsel is directed to turn over those transcripts to the respondent when counsel serves the appellant’s brief on the respondent; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to assign counsel is granted and pursuant to County Law §722 the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute theappeal:Paul Skip Laisure, Esq.Appellate Advocates111 John Street – 9th FloorNew York, New York 10038and it is further,ORDERED that upon service of a copy of this decision and order on motion upon it, the Department of Probation is hereby authorized and directed to provide assigned counsel with a copy of the presentence report prepared in connection with or considered by the trial court in connection with the appellant’s risk level determination, including the recommendation sheet and any prior reports on the appellant which are incorporated or referred to in the report; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged; assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with this Court’s rules (see 22 NYCRR 670.1, et seq.) and written directions; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the file has been sealed, it is hereby unsealed for the limited purpose of allowing assigned counsel or his representative access to the record for the purpose of preparing the appeal; such access shall include permission to copy the papers insofar as they pertain to the appellant; and it is further,ORDERED that the filing fee is waived (see CPLR 1102[d]); and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order on motion upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEVENTHAL, BARROS and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Leventhal, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ.B. M., etc. res-ap, v. Warwick Valley Central School District, et al., def, Wayne Rossi, appellant- res — On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 24, 2018, in the above-entitled case is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order on motion is substituted therefor:Motion by the respondents-appellants on an appeal and a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated February 21, 2017, pursuant to CPLR 5520, in effect, to extend their time to file a notice of cross appeal, which was timely served. Application by Wayne Rossi 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 is granted, and on or before March 1, 2018, the respondents-appellants shall file the notice of cross appeal with the clerk of the Supreme Court, Orange County, and file proof of filing with this Court; and it is further,ORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant-respondent’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the joint record or appendix on appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][1]) and the appellant-respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,February 15, 2018B.M. v. WARWICK VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICTORDERED that the respondents-appellants shall serve and file their answering brief, including their points of argument on the cross appeal, in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]).MATTER of Applications for Extensions of Time — Parties in the following causes have filed applications pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to extend the time to perfect or to serve and file a brief.Upon the papers filed in support of the applications, it isORDERED that the applications are granted and the following parties in the following causes are granted the specified extensions of time:Title Docket NumberApplicant Name(s) Extended DeadlineBermejo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation2017-07745Patrick J. HackettConstantinidis & Associates, P.C.March 22, 2018Bianchi v. New York City Transit Authority2017-07229Andrew BianchiMarch 22, 2018Capital One, N.A. v. McComb2017-09364Leslie A. McCombApril 17, 2018Cypress Medical Services v. Jodol Realty Corp. 2017-08948Cypress Medical ServicesFebruary 23, 2018Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Ezeji2017-07166Verna EzejiMarch 15, 2018Gleitman v. Zorbas2017-08384Arnold GleitmanFebruary 22, 2018Iovine v. State of New York 2017-06838Robin J. Iovine March 1, 2018JFK Family Ltd. Partnership v. Millbrae Natural Gas Development Fund 2005, L.P.2017-06792JFK Family Ltd. PartnershipJames Knott, Sr.James Knott, Jr.Carroll KnottAllison KnottCarroll Knott McGillMarch 30, 2018Jamal v. Caroline Gardens Tenants Corporation2017-06594Muzaffar JamalFebruary 20, 2018Keys v. New York City Transit Authority2017-09466Nuciaratu KeysApril 24, 2018L.A. Wenger Contracting Co., Inc. v. Wenger 2017-06222Wendy WengerMarch 22, 2018Matter of Meighan v. Ponte2017-10713Joseph PonteNew York City Department of CorrectionStacy Cumberbatch, CommissionerNew York City Department of Citywide Administrative ServicesCity of New YorkMarch 2, 2018Nahavandi v. Golyan2017-09690Kourosh GolyanMay 7, 2018Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Reitman2017-05926Nationstar Mortgage, LLCMarch 15, 2018Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Azcona2017-09362Maria CuestaLourdes CuestaApril 16, 2018Nestor I, LLC v. Moriarty-Gentile2017-06085Nestor I, LLCMarch 6, 2018Noghrey v. Town of Brookhaven2017-07189Parviz NoghreyMarch 15, 2018Pilkington v. Pilkington2017-02011Elizabeth PilkingtonMarch 2, 2018Pinkney v. Fields2017-03156Shirley PinkneyWynema PearsonMarch 8, 2018Rinaldi v. Wakmal2017-00984Progressive Casualty Insurance CompanyApril 16, 2018T. v. Bethpage Union Free School District2018-01146B.T.Stacy TannerApril 4, 2018Tenser v. Buccheri2017-08509Arthur S. TenserJoan TenserFebruary 23, 2018Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Starr2017-09421Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. March 7, 2018Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.v Mone2016-11051Vince J. MoneMarch 1, 2018White v. Farquharson2017-09158Dukel FarquharsonApril 16, 2018By Balkin, J.P.; Chambers, Duffy and Lasalle, JJ.MATTER of City of Rye ap, v. Westchester County Board of Legislators, et al., res — On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the decision and order on motion of this Court dated February 14, 2018, in the above-entitled matter, on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 20, 2017, is amended by deleting from the first paragraph thereof the words “the respondents Westchester County Board of Legislators and Westchester County Planning Department” and substituting therefor the words “the respondent Standard Amusements, LLC,” and by deleting from the third paragraph thereof the word “movants’” and substituting therefor the word “movant’s.”BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.
