Andrew DiSanto, ap, v. Bledar Spahiu res, Bennys Masonry, Inc., defendant (and a third-party action). — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated July 15, 2016, insofar as taken against the respondent Mar-Sal Plumbing & Heating, Inc.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is granted and the appeal insofar as taken against the respondent Mar-Sal Plumbing & Heating, Inc. is marked withdrawn.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.PEOPLE, res, v. Yona Weinberg, ap — 2012-02482People of State of New York, respondent, v Yona Weinberg, appellant.Appeals by Yona Weinberg from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 19, 2009, and the transcript of the proceedings of the Supreme Court, Kings County, in the above-entitled matter which occurred on February 8, 2012. The appeals have not been perfected.Now, on the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the appellant is directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing both appeals for failure to timely perfect in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]) and dismissing the appeal from the transcript of the proceedings which occurred on February 8, 2012, on the ground that no appeal lies from an unsigned transcript (see Ojeda v. Metropolitan Playhouse, Inc., 120 AD2d 717), 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 Clerk of this Court or her designee is directed to serve a copy of this order to show cause upon the parties, by ordinary mail.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Sgroi, Cohen and Maltese, JJ.Jodi Greene ap, v. Nahid Rachlin res — Appeals by Jodi Greene and Jeffrey Greene from two orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 4, 2015, and April 24, 2015, respectively, which were determined by decision and order of this Court dated October 18, 2017. By order to show cause contained in the decision and order dated October 18, 2017, the parties to the appeals and/or their counsel were directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing sanctions and/or costs, if any, including appellate attorney’s fees, against the appellants and/or their counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) as this Court might deem appropriate. Motion by the appellants for leave to reargue the appeals, or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this Court. Cross motion by the respondents Nahid Rachlin and Howard Rachlin pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a) to impose a sanction on the appellants and/or costs and counsel fees incurred in responding to the appellants’ motion.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 cross motion, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to impose sanctions and/or costs is granted, and within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order on motion, the appellants are directed to deposit the sum of $500 with the Clerk of this Court for transmittal to the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[b]; 130-1.3), and pay reasonable appellate attorney’s fees to the respondents Nahid Rachlin and Howard Rachlin in the sum of $5,000, and reasonable appellate attorney’s fees to the respondent Douglas Elliman Real Estate, Inc., in the sum of $10,000 (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]); and it is further,ORDERED that the appellants’ motion is denied, with $100 costs; and it is further,ORDERED that the cross motion is granted, and within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order on motion, the appellants are directed to deposit the sum of $100 with the Clerk of this Court for transmittal to the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[b]; 130-1.3), and pay reasonable appellate attorney’s fees to the respondents Nahid Rachlin and Howard Rachlin in the sum of $1,250, incurred in responding to the appellants’ motion (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]); and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, shall enter judgment accordingly (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.2); and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, or her designee, shall serve copies of this decision and order on motion upon the appellants, the respondents Nahid Rachlin and Howard Rachlin, and the respondent Douglas Elliman Real Estate, Inc., by regular mail; and it is further,ORDERED that within 10 days after payment of attorney’s fees to the respondents Nahid Rachlin and Howard Rachlin, and the respondent Douglas Elliman Real Estate, Inc., the appellants shall file proof of such payment with the Clerk of this Court.By decision and order dated October 18, 2017, this Court affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 4, 2015, which granted that branch of the motion of the respondent Douglas Elliman Real Estate, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it and searched the record and awarded summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the respondents Nahid Rachlin, Howard Rachlin, Maura Nicolosi, and Babak Nassirian, and affirmed an order of the same court dated April 24, 2015, which, after a hearing, granted that branch of the motion of the respondent Douglas Elliman Real Estate, Inc., which was pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a) for an award of attorney’s fees against the appellants. This Court stated that “since the [appellants] are advancing the same arguments on appeal as they did in the Supreme Court, these appeals may be frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.” Based upon the papers submitted in response to the order to show cause, the imposition of sanctions and/or costs against the appellants is warranted pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) in the amounts indicated. Moreover, by advancing those same arguments in support of their motion, inter alia, for leave to reargue, the imposition of additional sanctions and/or costs against the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) is warranted in the amounts indicated.MASTRO, J.P., SGROI, COHEN and MALTESE, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Sgroi, Cohen and Maltese, JJ.Jodi Greene ap, v. Nahid Rachlin res, et al., def — Appeals by Jodi Greene and Jeffrey Greene from two orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 13, 2016, and August 3, 2016, respectively, which were determined by decision and order of this Court dated October 18, 2017. By order to show cause contained in the decision and order dated October 18, 2017, the parties to the appeals and/or their counsel were directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered imposing sanctions and/or costs, if any, including appellate attorney’s fees, against the appellants and/or their counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) as this Court might deem appropriate. Motion by the appellants for leave to reargue the appeals, or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this Court. Cross motion by the respondents pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a) to impose a sanction on the appellants and/or costs and counsel fees incurred in responding to the appellants’ motion.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 cross motion, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to impose sanctions and/or costs is granted, and within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order on motion, the appellants are directed to deposit the sum of $500 with the Clerk of this Court for transmittal to the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[b]; 130-1.3), and pay reasonable appellate attorney’s fees to the respondents in the sum of $5,000 (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]); and it is further,ORDERED that the appellants’ motion is denied, with $100 costs; and it is further,ORDERED that the cross motion is granted, and within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order on motion, the appellants are directed to deposit the sum of $100 with the Clerk of this Court for transmittal to the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[b]; 130-1.3), and pay reasonable appellate attorney’s fees to the respondents in the sum of $1,250, incurred in responding to the appellants’ motion (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]); and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, shall enter judgment accordingly (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.2); and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, or her designee, shall serve copies of this decision and order on motion upon the appellants and the respondents by regular mail; and it is further,ORDERED that within 10 days after payment of the attorney’s fees to the respondents the appellants shall file proof of payment of such sanctions with the Clerk of this Court.By decision and order dated October 18, 2017, this Court dismissed an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 13, 2016, and affirmed so much of an order of the same court dated August 3, 2016, as granted the respondents’ motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a) for an award of costs and attorney’s fees against the appellants, and denied the appellants’ cross motion, in effect, to vacate so much of a prior order of the same court as searched the record and awarded summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the respondents. This Court also stated that the appellants’ “continued pursuit of their claims against the [respondents]… was apparently designed to harass the [respondents]” and noted that “ since the [appellants] continue to pursue the same arguments on appeal as well as advance additional meritless arguments, these appeals may be frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.” Based upon the papers submitted in response to the order to show cause, the imposition of sanctions and/or costs against the appellants is warranted pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) in the amounts indicated. Moreover, by advancing those same arguments in support of their motion, inter alia, for leave to reargue, the imposition of additional sanctions and/or costs against the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) is warranted in the amounts indicated.MASTRO, J.P., SGROI, COHEN and MALTESE, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.Tatyana Bianco, appellant-res, v. Law Offices of Yuri Prakhin def, Steven C. Kletzkin, PLLC res, Schneider Law Group respondents-ap — Motion by the appellant-respondent on an appeal and a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 31, 2017, to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal and to direct the respondent-appellant to pay a certain sum of costs. Separate motion by the respondents-appellants to enlarge the time to perfect the cross appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the appellant-respondent’s motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the respondents-appellants’ motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the appellant-respondent’s motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal and the respondents-appellants’ motion are granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant-respondent’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the joint record or appendix on the appeal and cross 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,ORDERED that the respondents-appellants shall serve and file the answering brief, including the points of argument on the cross appeal, in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]); and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the appellant-respondent’s motion which is to direct the respondents-appellants to pay a certain sum of costs is denied in light of the representation by the respondents-appellants that they will pay those costs.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.Deutsche Bank Trust Co., etc., res, v. Doreen Bullen, appellant defendants; NMD Realty Holding, LLC, nonparty-res — Motion by NMD Realty Holding, LLC, for leave to intervene on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 24, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied as unnecessary as NMD Realty Holding, LLC, is a respondent on the appeal; and it is further,ORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the nonparty-respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the nonparty-respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant shall serve and file a reply brief in response to the nonparty-respondent’s brief, if any, on or before April 6, 2018.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.United Airconditioning Corp., respondent- ap, v. Axis Piping, Inc., appellant- res — Motion by the appellant-respondent to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supeme Court, Nassau County, entered June 14, 2017, for leave to file a joint record in the form annexed to the motion papers, and to direct the respondent-appellant to pay one-half of the costs of the joint record.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to report on whether that court considered the papers filed in connection with a motion that was determined by an order of that court dated December 14, 2016, in determining the motion and cross motion that were determined by the order entered June 14, 2017; the Supreme Court, Nassau county, shall file its report to this court with all convenient speed; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is held in abeyance in the interim.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.Village of Northport, res, v. Maryclaire Krumholz, appellant — Motion by the appellant pro se on appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 5, 2016, and a judgment of the same court entered March 16, 2016, to waive compliance with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 670.10.2(f) regarding certification of the appellant’s replacement appendix. Cross motion by the respondent to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with a decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 6, 2017.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 it is further,ORDERED that the cross motion is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.Vincent Perretti, ap, v. Ghassan Joseph Samara, etc. res — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 19, 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 appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.Zefa Rudovic, ap, v. Law Office of Timothy A. Green, etc. res — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 7, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Jerome A. Mack, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se to relieve counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered June 1, 2015, and for the assignment of new counsel. Separate motion by the respondent to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief.Upon the papers filed in support of the appellant’s motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the respondent’s motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the appellant’s motion is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that the respondent’s motion is granted, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, res, v. Tchet Ab Utcha Ra El, etc., appellant def — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 28, 2016, and to amend the brief filed on October 30, 2017.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 appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is granted, the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ.Dave Shostack, ap, v. Cory Lewkowitz, et al., res — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated April 6, 2017, and for leave to prosecute the appeal on the original papers.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.CHAMBERS, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Leventhal, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. Kavon Ford, pet, v. Kevin Cherverko, etc. res — Application by the petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus and for poor person relief.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the application which is for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022(b) is waived, and that branch of the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the application which is for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEVENTHAL, BARROS and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Leventhal, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Fredy Reyes, ap — Motion by the respondent to strike the appellant’s brief on an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered November 2, 2016, for failure to provide the respondent with the transcripts of proceedings which occurred on February 25, 2016, April 5, 2016, April 6, 2016, and April 11, 2016, and, in effect, to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to strike the appellant’s brief is denied on condition that on or before April 23, 2018, the appellant provide the subject transcripts to the respondent; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is granted, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until May 23, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Leventhal, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Andrea Harris, ap — Motion by the appellant to seal the record and briefs, and the proceedings of oral argument on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 10, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to seal the record and briefs is granted, the record and briefs will be filed under seal, and shall remain sealed upon filing; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to seal the proceedings of oral argument are denied without prejudice to renew after the appeal has been calendared for oral argument.MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Leventhal, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ.MATTER of Nouchie W. Vellon, pet, v. Commissioner, NYS DOCCS, res — Motion by the petitioner to transfer a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which was transferred to this Court by an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated March 29, 2017, to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the petitioner’s time to perfect the proceeding by causing the original papers constituting the record to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]) and by serving and filing a brief is enlarged until April 23, 2018.MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Austin, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ.Lisa Blumencranz, res, v. Allan S. Botter, ap — Motion by the respondent to enlarge the record on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 24, 2017, to include the transcript of certain proceedings and to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, 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 22, 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.DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, MILLER and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.Joseph Soffer, ap, v. US Bank, National Association, etc., res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 60-day enlargement of time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 23, 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 to the extent that the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until March 5, 2018, the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin , JJ.MATTER of Imani L. J. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, petitioner-appellant; Shaunta J. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Jeremiah W. T. (Anonymous), a/k/a Jeremiah W. J. (Anonymous), ap — SCO Family of Services, petitioner-appellant; Shaunta J. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 2)MATTER of Wilesiah W. B. (Anonymous), a/k/a Wilesiah W. J. (Anonymous). SCO Family of Services, petitioner-appellant; Shaunta J. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 3)MATTER of Zackariyah M. T. (Anonymous), a/k/a Zackariyah M. J. (Anonymous), ap — SCO Family of Services, petitioner-appellant; Shaunta J. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 4) B-12790/14) — Appeal by Jeremiah W. T., a/k/a Jeremiah W. J., and Zackariyah M. T., a/k/a Zackariyah M. J., and separate appeal by SCO Family of Services, from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated July 5, 2017. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Arthur Rubin, Esq., dated February 8, 2018, it isORDERED that the respondent is granted leave to proceed as a poor person on the appeal, and the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to respond to the appeal:Jill M. Zuccardy, Esq.225 Broadway, Suite 1515New York, NY 10007212-962-1192and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel shall promptly attempt to contact the respondent at the address provided by the Court, and shall notify the Case Manager assigned to the appeal on or before March 6, 2018, in writing, that she has done so and that either(1) the respondent is interested in responding to the appeals, or(2) the respondent is not interested in responding to the appeals, or that she has been unable to contact the respondent, and wishes to be relieved of the assignment.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.MATTER of John S. Peters, res, v. Jasmine King, ap — Appeal by Jasmine King from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated January 6, 2017. The appellant’s brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court on February 13, 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.Estate of Josephine Odom, etc., et al., res, v. Mercy Medical Center, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 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.Catherine Mancuso, res, v. Simon Property Group, Inc. ap — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 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.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.U.S. Bank Trust N.A., etc., res, v. Donald A. Leone, appellant def — Application to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 20, 2017.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 appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, res, v. Joseph Mohen, etc., appellant def — Application to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 30, 2015.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated February 12, 2018, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Vivian Rose res, v. All Sport Fishkill Health & Fitness Club, Inc., ap — Application to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated May 24, 2017.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated February 2, 2018, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.Shon Chambers, res, v. Quality Transportation Corp. ap — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 5, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Luois Lloyd, a/k/a Louis Lloyd, ap — Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 6, 2016.Upon the stipulation of the appellant and the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated February 13, 2018, it isORDERED that the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Nariya C. F. W. (Anonymous), ap — Administration for Children’s Services, petitioner- res, Nyeisha W. (Anonymous), respondent- res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of NaZeer C. W. (Anonymous), ap — Administration for Children’s Services, petitioner- res, Nyeisha W. (Anonymous), respondent- res — (Proceeding No. 2)MATTER of NaZeer C. W. (Anonymous), ap — Forestdale, Inc., petitioner-res, Nyeisha W. (Anonymous), respondent- res — (Proceeding No. 3)MATTER of Nariya C. F. W. (Anonymous), ap — Forestdale, Inc., petitioner-res, Nyeisha W. (Anonymous), respondent- res — (Proceeding No. 4) B-20125-14, B-6428-16) — Appeals by Nariya C. F. W. and Na’Zeer C. W. from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, dated August 9, 2017, and August 10, 2017, respectively. The following named attorney was assigned to represent the appellants by the Family Court, Queens County:Barbara Caravello, Esq.155-03 Jamaica AvenueJamaica, NY 11432516-749-3348On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that Barbara Caravello is relieved as counsel for the appellants and is directed to turn over all papers MATTER to the new attorneys for the appellants herein assigned; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to Family Court Act §1120, the following named attorney is assigned as attorney for the appellant Nariya C. F. W.:James Gavin, Esq.153-01 Jamaica Avenue, Ste. 201Jamaica, NY 11432-3826516-472-0207ORDERED that pursuant to Family Court Act §1120, the following named attorney is assigned as attorney for the appellant Na’Zeer C. W.:Rosa M. Celeste, Esq.155-03 Jamaica AveJamaica, NY 11432-3829718-355-9050and it is further,ORDERED that the appeals will be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the parties. 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 appeals, when counsel serves a brief upon those parties; and it is further,ORDERED that each assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeals expeditiously in accordance with any or orders issued pursuant to 670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]); and it is further,ORDERED that each assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order on motion upon the clerk of the court from which the appeals are taken; 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 after the date of this decision and order on motion, each 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 the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeals; or(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation 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 this decision and order on motion has been served upon the clerk of the court from which the appeals are taken, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing that party’s appeals; and it is further,ORDERED that if an assigned counsel does not take any of the actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above within 30 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, the Clerk of the Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeals to show cause why that party’s appeals should or should not be dismissed.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.V. Q., res, v. Little Flower Childrens Services, ap, Rita Rivas def — Application to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 24, 2015.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated February 13, 2018, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Rashad Salaam, ap — Application to withdraw an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 26, 2014.Upon the stipulation of the appellant and the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated February 13, 2018, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.MATTER of Alana H. (Anonymous). Dutchess County Department of Community and Family Services, petitioner-res, Caitlin M. (Anonymous) respondents-ap — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Sophia H. (Anonymous). Dutchess County Department of Community and Family Services, petitioner-res, Caitlin M. (Anonymous) respondents-ap — (Proceeding No. 2) — Appeals by Caitlin M. and Javier H. from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County, dated August 31, 2017. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Christopher A. Montalto, Esq., dated October 23, 2017, it isORDERED that the respondent-appellant Javier H. is granted leave to proceed as a poor person on the appeals and the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute his appeal:Christopher A. Montalto, Esq.25 Market Street, Suite 700Poughkeepsie, NY 12601845-790-0845ORDERED that the appeals will be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the parties. 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 assigned counsel for the respondent-appellant Javier H., 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 assigned counsel. Assigned counsel is directed to provide copies of said transcripts to all of the other parties to the appeals, including the attorney for the children, if any, when counsel serves a 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 appeals are taken; and it is further,ORDERED that Javier H. shall perfect his appeal in the above-entitled proceedings 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 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 appeals; 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 appeals are taken, the date thereof, and the date by which the transcripts are expected; or(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal by Javier H.; 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 appeals to show cause why the appeal by Javier H. should or should not be dismissed.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Leventhal, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ.MATTER of Christopher Heady, pet, v. Vincent Bettina, etc., res — Motion by the respondent pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss a proceeding pursuant to Public Officers Law §36 to remove the respondent from the public office of Highway Superintendent of the Town of Wappinger.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the respondent’s time to serve and file an answer is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the respondent’s answer shall be served and filed on or before that date.MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Sgroi and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Jose Baez, ap — Motion by the appellant to consolidate appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered December 2, 2013, and, by permission, from an order of the same court dated March 15, 2017, and for poor person relief and the assignment of counsel with respect to the appeal from the order.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 appeals 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 any proceedings held in connection with the order dated March 15, 2017, in this action, 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 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 pursuant to County Law §722 the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal from the order:Paul Skip Laisure, Esq.Appellate Advocates2 Rector Street – 10th FloorNew York, New York 10006and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeals is enlarged; assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeals 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 appeals; 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 appeals are taken.BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Sgroi and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Jill Meyer, etc., ap, v. State of New York Office of Mental Health, res, et al., def — (Claim No. 127941) — Motion by the respondent to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, dated November 4, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Sgroi and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.US Bank, National Association, etc., res, v. Toshiba Carter, def, Andrea Robinson, ap — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered October 12, 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 appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Sgroi and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.William Carriere, res, v. Joseph R. Carriere ap, Rosemary Carriere, def — Motion by the appellants to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 22, 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 appellants’ time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 22, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Suffolk County Department of Social Services, on behalf of Donna B. (Anonymous), ap, v. Dominick C. (Anonymous), res — Appeal by Suffolk County Department of Social Services from an order of the Family Court, dated April 7, 2017. The following named attorney was assigned to represent the child by the Family Court, Suffolk County:Margaret Schaefler, Esq.P.O. Box 834Babylon, NY 11702631-236-4440On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the Margaret Schaefler, Esq., is directed to turn over all papers MATTER to the new attorney for the child herein assigned; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to Family Court Act §1120, the following named attorney is assigned as attorney for the child:Arza R. Feldman, Esq.262 RXR PlazaWest Tower, 6th FloorUniondale, NY 11556516-522-2828and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), the time for the Arza R. Feldman, Esq. to serve and file a brief on the appeal is enlarged until March 22, 2018.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Akilah A. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-appellant; Bishme A. (Anonymous), et al., res-res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Jassir A. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-appellant; Bishme A. (Anonymous), et al., res-res — (Proceeding No. 2) — Appeal by Administration for Children’s Services from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated August 9, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal by causing the original papers constituting the record on the appeal to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]) and by serving and filing the appellant’s brief on the appeal is enlarged until April 2, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.HSBC Bank USA, etc., res, v. Michael N. Bazigos ap, et al., def — Application by the appellant Katerina Bazigos to withdraw her appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 6, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal by the appellant Katerina Bazigos is marked withdrawn.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Shayna Heyman res, v. Culinary Tech Center, LLC, ap — Application by the appellant for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 3, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Reinhold Beckmann, ap, v. Software Engineering of America, Inc., res — Application to withdraw appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 21, 2016, and April 17, 2017, respectively.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeals dated February 8, 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.Marie Velletta ap, v. Leisure Village Association, Inc. res — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated May 5, 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.Elizabeth Baum, ap, v. Trevor Connolly, res — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 17, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Bleeme Compton res-ap, v. John S. Hoey appellants-res — Application by the respondents-appellants for leave to withdraw a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 30, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the cross appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.Segundo Humberto Allaico Tenesaca res, v. Reed D. Construction Corp., et al., third-party def, New York University, et al., ap — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 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.MATTER of Peter T. (Anonymous), Jr. Westchester County Department of Social Services, petitioner-res, Shay S. P. (Anonymous), a/k/a Shay S. T. (Anonymous) respondents-ap — Separate appeals by Shay S. P., a/k/a Shay S. T., and Peter T. from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated October 31, 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 of appellant Shay S. P., a/k/a Shay S. T., 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 19, 2018.John Wales res, v. Ashesh Dinesk Mehta def, David Chen, et al., ap — Application by the appellants withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 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 and the appeal is marked withdrawn.MATTER of Peter T. (Anonymous), Jr. Westchester County Department of Social Services, petitioner-res, Shay S. P. (Anonymous), a/k/a Shay S. T. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant res — Appeal by Shay S. P., a/k/a Shay S. T., from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated October 31, 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 19, 2018.MATTER of Julie Rodriguez, etc., ap, v. Lynette M. Thompson, res — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated November 17, 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.US Bank National Association, res, v. Fabrice Haddad, ap — Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 30, 2017.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated February 8, 2018, it isORDERED that the appeal is marked withdrawn.MATTER of Michael Markowski, res, v. The New York City Employees Retirement System, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 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.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, ap, v. Carol Cooper, etc. res, et al., def — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 19, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies as of right from an order that is not the result of a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701), and leave to appeal has not been granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the application is denied as academic.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Warren D. Spinner, appellant-res, v. Carol R. Spinner, res-res — Application by the respondent-appellant for leave to withdraw a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated July 27, 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 cross appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Magaret McArdle, deceased. Joan Booker, petitioner-res, Margaret A. Stankevich respondents- ap — (File No. 2041A/15) — Application by the respondents-appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, dated July 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 on the Court’s own motion, the parties are directed to show cause why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the respondents-appellants are not aggrieved by the order dated July 14, 2017 (see CPLR 5511), by filing an affidavit or affirmation on that issue with the Clerk of this Court on or before March 30, 2018, and by serving one copy of the same on each other; and it is further,ORDERED that the application is held in abeyance in the interim; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, or her designee, shall serve a copy of this order to show cause on the parties to the appeal by regular mail.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Timothy J. Bittrolff, ap — 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 judgement of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered May 2, 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.Ramon Nicholas Sandoval, plf-res, v. Trump Plaza Owners, Inc. defendants- res, Peter Katsihtis, appellant (and third-party actions). — Application by the defendants-respondents pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 20, 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 applicants’ time to serve and file a brief is enlarged, and the brief submitted to the Clerk of the Court is accepted for filing and deemed timely served.Steven Seidler ap, v. Jacob Knopf, etc. res — Application by the respondents Jacob Knopf, Solomon Knopf, Chaya Knopf, Ruth Knopf, Fischer Knopf, Ashburton 70, LLC, and AAR Group Holding, LLC, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 29, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filedin opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the time of the respondents Jacob Knopf,Solomon Knopf, Chaya Knopf, Ruth Knopf, Fischer Knopf, Ashburton 70, LLC, and AAR Group Holding, LLC, to serve and file a brief is enlarged, and the brief submitted to the Clerk of the Court is accepted for filing and deemed timely served.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Oraine McKoy, ap — On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the decision and order on motion of this Court dated February 13, 2018, in the above-entitled case on a motion by Oraine McKoy pursuant to CPL 460.30 for an extension of time to take an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 30, 2016, is amended by deleting from the preamble thereof the date “September 30, 2017,” and substituting therefor the date “September 30, 2016.”SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.Edward Kelley, etc. et al., res, v. Aruna Garuda def, Nikhil Gupta, etc., defendant-appellant; Board of Trustee of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. nonparty- ap — Application pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time of the appellant and the nonparty-appellants to serve and file their respective reply briefs on appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 31, 2017, and an order of the same court entered October 3, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the time of the appellant and the nonparty-appellants to serve and file their respective reply briefs is enlarged until March 6, 2018, and the reply briefs shall be served and filed on or before that date.
