MATTER of Peter v. Spagnuolo, admitted as Peter Vincent Spagnuolo, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, petitioner; Peter v. Spagnuolo, respondent (Attorney Registration No. 2547669) — Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(4)(f) and 22 NYCRR §§1240.12(b)(2) to suspend the respondent from the practice of law based on his conviction, upon his plea of guilty, on July 5, 2017, in the County Court, County of Westchester, of petit larceny, in violation of Penal Law §155.25, a misdemeanor, which is a serious crime, as defined in Judiciary Law §90(4)(d), and pursuant to 22 NYCRR §1240.12(c)(2)(i), to direct him to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be made based on his conviction of a serious crime. The respondent was sentenced on July 5, 2017, to a one-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay a $50 DNA fee. In an affirmation in opposition to the motion, the respondent’s counsel concedes that petit larceny is a serious crime pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(4)(d) but asks the Court, in the exercise of its discretion under 22 NYCRR §1240.12(c)(2)(ii), not to suspend the respondent until he has been afforded a hearing in mitigation. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on April 14, 1993, under the name Peter Vincent Spagnuolo.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 furtherORDERED that the respondent, Peter V. Spagnuolo, admitted as Peter Vincent Spagnuolo, is immediately suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(4)(f) and 22 NYCRR §§1240.12(c)(2)(ii), as a result of his conviction of a serious crime, continuing until further order of this Court; and it is further,ORDERED that the respondent, Peter V. Spagnuolo, admitted as Peter Vincent Spagnuolo, shall promptly comply with this Court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15); and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, during the period of suspension and until further order of this Court, the respondent, Peter V. Spagnuolo, admitted as Peter Vincent Spagnuolo, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2)(i), the respondent, Peter V. Spagnuolo, admitted as Peter Vincent Spagnuolo, is directed to show cause at a hearing pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2)(iii) before a Special Referee, appointed herein, why a final order of suspension, censure, or disbarment should not be made, based on his conviction of a serious crime as defined in Judiciary Law §90(4); and it is further,ORDERED that this matter is referred to the Hon. Alfred J. Weiner, c/o Mandel Katz & Brosnan LLP, 210 Route 303, Valley Cottage, NY 10989, as Special Referee, to hear and report, with the hearing to be completed within 60 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, or as soon as practicable, and to submit a report, which contains his findings on any mitigating or aggravating factors, and a recommendation as to whether the respondent has demonstrated why a final order of public discipline should not be made, within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,ORDERED that if the respondent, Peter V. Spagnuolo, admitted as Peter Vincent Spagnuolo, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f).MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, DILLON, BALKIN and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Rivera, Dillon, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ.MATTER of Saba Shaheen Chughtai, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 4549580) — Application by Saba Shaheen Chughtai, who was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on February 13, 2008, to change her name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law to Saba Chughtai Azam.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 Saba Shaheen Chughtai to Saba Chughtai Azam, effective immediately.MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, DILLON, BALKIN and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Rivera, Dillon, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ.MATTER of Jessica Marie Resto, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 4592432) — Application by Jessica Marie Resto, who was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on July 16, 2008, to change her name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law to Jessica Marie Manzanillo.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 Marie Resto to Jessica Marie Manzanillo, effective immediately.MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, DILLON, BALKIN and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Rivera, Dillon, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ.MATTER of Kimberly Caitlin Thomas, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 5138359) — Application by Kimberly Caitlin Thomas, who was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on August 14, 2013, to change her name on the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law to Kimberly Caitlin Terry.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 Kimberly Caitlin Thomas to Kimberly Caitlin Terry, effective immediately.MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, DILLON, BALKIN and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Rivera, Dillon, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ.MATTER of Ihab Hussam Tartir, a suspended attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 2981322) — Motion by Ihab Hussam Tartir for reinstatement to the Bar as an attorney and counselor-at-law. Mr. Tartir was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department on June 22, 1999. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated February 6, 2009, Mr. Tartir was immediately suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(4)(f), based on his conviction of a serious crime. By opinion and order of this Court dated February 7, 2012, Mr. Tartir was suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years, effective immediately, based on a single charge of professional misconduct contained in a petition dated April 13, 2010 (Matter of Tartir, 93 AD3d 82).Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is held in abeyance and the matter is referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to investigate and report on Ihab Hussam Tartir’s character and fitness to practice law.MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, DILLON, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Rivera, Dillon, Balkin and Duffy, JJ.MATTER of Emmanuel O. Onuaguluchi, a disbarred attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 2547123) — Motion by Emmanuel O. Onuaguluchi for reinstatement to the Bar as an attorney and counselor-at-law. Mr. Onuaguluchi was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on May 19, 1993, under the name Emmanuel Onuaguluchi. By opinion and order of this Court dated October 24, 2006, Mr. Onuaguluchi was disbarred, effective immediately, and his name was stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, based on a petition dated August 4, 2005, containing six charges of professional misconduct. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 3, 2007, Mr. Onuaguluchi’s motion, inter alia, for leave to reargue was denied. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 15, 2016, Mr. Onuaguluchi’s first motion for reinstatement was denied.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.We find that Emmanuel O. Onuaguluchi does not demonstrate the requisite character and fitness to practice law.MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, DILLON, BALKIN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.By Priscilla Hall, J.P.; Austin, Sgroi and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Alma Caldavado, ap — Motion by Innocence Network for leave to serve and file an amicus curiae brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 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 granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the amicus curiae brief must be served on the parties, and nine copies filed in this Court, on or before January 19, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that no oral argument by the amicus curiae shall be permitted; and it is further,ORDERED that the parties, if they be so advised, may file reply briefs to the amicus curiae brief within 10 days after service upon them of the amicus curiae brief.HALL, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.Peter G. McKiernan, ap, v. Joseph Vaccaro, etc., def, Ernest Mancuso, Jr., res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until February 28, 2018, to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens 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 to the extent that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until February 20, 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.Residential Credit Solutions, Inc., res, v. Rene Guzman, etc., appellant def — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 90-day enlargement of time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 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 appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 12, 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.Kenna Lucien, ap, v. Bobs Discounty Furniture, LLC def-res, et al, defendant (and a third-party action). — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until March 19, 2018, to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 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 to the extent that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until February 20, 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.Thomas Thompson, Jr., ap, v. Coast to Coast Auto Glass, LLC, respondent def — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 90-day enlargement of time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated April 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 perfect the appeal is enlarged until February 26, 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.State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, res, v. Valentina Anikeyeva, et al., ap — Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 19, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellants’ time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until February 20, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.By Leventhal, J.P.; Barros, Nelson and Christopher, JJ.834 Pacific Street Owner, LLC, ap, v. St. Josephs Roman Catholic Church of Brooklyn, res — Motion by the respondent on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 1, 2017, on the ground that the record and the appellant’s brief contain or refer to matter dehors the record, to vacate the stay granted by a decision and order on motion of this Court dated September 26, 2017, and for an award of costs and an attorney’s fee. Cross motion by the appellant to enlarge the record, take judicial notice of certain material, or for leave to serve and file a replacement record and brief, and for an award of costs and an attorney’s fee. Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the cross motion, and the papers filed in opposition 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 branch of the cross motion which is for leave to serve and file a replacement record and brief is granted, and on or before February 5, 2018, the appellant shall serve and file a replacement record that does not contain the material on pages R134 through R193 of the original record and a replacement brief that does not refer to the material contained on those pages of the original record; and it is further,ORDERED that the cross motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,ORDERED that motion is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that the application is granted, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 12, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.LEVENTHAL, J.P., BARROS, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Maltese and Lasalle, JJ.Julia Craig-Horn, etc. ap, v. Hosam Sayed res — Motion by William Schwitzer & Associates, P.C., for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellants on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 14, 2016, and to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition and in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and on or before January 19, 2018, William Schwitzer & Associates, P.C., shall serve its clients by one of the methods specified in CPLR 2103(c), with a copy of this decision and order on motion and shall file proof of such service with the Clerk of this Court; and it is further,ORDERED that no further proceedings shall be taken against the appellants , without leave of the court, until the expiration of 30 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order on motion; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellants’ time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until March 19, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.DILLON, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Hall, Austin and Sgroi, JJ.K. A. K. (Anonymous), res-ap, v. G. B. K. (Anonymous), appellant-res — Motion by the respondent-appellant to enlarge the time to serve and file a supplemental brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 29, 2016, and on an appeal and a cross appeal from a judgment of the same court entered August 5, 2016, and for leave to serve and file an oversized brief of 20,000 words.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 serve and file a supplemental brief is granted, the respondent-appellant’s time to serve and file a supplemental brief is enlarged until January 19, 2018, and the respondent-appellant’s supplemental brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for leave to serve and file an oversized brief of 20,000 words is denied.CHAMBERS, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.By Priscilla Hall, J.P.; Austin, Sgroi and Christopher, JJ.Medhat Jubran ap, v. Maimonides Medical Center, defendant third-party plaintiff- res, Long & DeLosa Construction Group, Ltd., third-party def-res — Motion by Jeffrey J. Shapiro & Associates, LLC, inter alia, for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellants on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 27, 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 branch of the motion which is for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted, and on or before January 19, 2018, Jeffrey J. Shapiro & Associates, LLC, shall serve its client by one of the methods specified in CPLR 2103(c), with a copy of this decision and order on motion and shall file proof of such service with the Clerk of this Court; and it is further,ORDERED that no further proceedings shall be taken against the appellants , without leave of the Court, until the expiration of 30 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order on motion; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeals is granted, the time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until March 20, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeals and the appellants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.HALL, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Iannacci, JJ.Michael Steward, res-ap, v. Mount Sinai Church of God in Christ, appellant-res — Motion by the appellant-respondent to stay all proceedings in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of an appeal and a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 14, 2017, or, in effect, for summary reversal. Cross motion by the respondent-appellant to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the cross motion, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that the cross motion is granted, the respondent-appellant ‘s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until February 8, 2018, and the respondent-appellant’s answering brief, including his points of argument on the cross appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]), shall be served and filed on or before that date.CHAMBERS, J.P., SGROI, HINDS-RADIX and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Iannacci, JJ.ECP Property II, LLC, res, v. Riverrock Nehemiah Realty, LLC, et al., appellants def — 2017-08019ECP Property II, LLC, respondent,v Riverrock Nehemiah Realty, LLC,et al., appellants defendants.(Index No. 3763/12)Motion by Berson & Budashewitz, P.C., for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellants on appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 6, 2017, and an order of the same court dated April 27, 2017, to enlarge the time to perfect the appeals, and to consolidate the appeals.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 withdraw as counsel is granted, and on or before January 19, 2018, Berson & Budashewitz, P.C., shall serve its clients by one of the methods specified in CPLR 2103(c), with a copy of this decision and order on motion and shall file proof of such service with the Clerk of this Court; and it is further,ORDERED that no further proceedings shall be taken against the appellants, without leave of the Court, until the expiration of 30 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order on motion; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeals is granted and the time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until March 20, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to consolidate the appeals is denied as unnecessary as the appeals may be consolidated as of right (see 22 NYCRR 670.7[c][1]).CHAMBERS, J.P., SGROI, HINDS-RADIX and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Cohen, J.P.; Barros, Iannacci and Christopher, JJ.MATTER of Amor S. W. (Anonymous). Forestdale, Inc., petitioner-res, Leonard H. (Anonymous), respondent- appellant res — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated September 28, 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, and 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 January 19, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.COHEN, J.P., BARROS, IANNACCI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Linda S. M. (Anonymous), appellant pet, v. Demetrius W. (Anonymous) res — V-18752-15, V-18753-15, V-18761-15) — Appeal by Linda S. M. from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated June 7, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the time for the attorney for the children to serve and file a brief on the appeal is enlarged until February 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.MATTER of Zhahaya A. Dockery, res, v. Latif S. Reid-OGarro, ap — Appeals by Latif S. Reid-O’Garro from two orders of the Family Court, Dutchess County, both dated May 23, 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 appeals is enlarged until February 2, 2018.MATTER of Dahlia-Gale Fletcher, res, v. Desford Damu Saul, ap — Appeal by Desford Damu Saul from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated September 11, 2017. The appellant’s brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court on December 28, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order, the brief for the respondent in the above-entitled appeal shall be served and filed.MATTER of Genella Lintao, ap, v. Richard Delgado, res — Appeal by Genella Lintao from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated August 17, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the 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 January 29, 2018.MATTER of Tishawn A. C. B. (Anonymous), ap — Appeals by Tishawn A. C. B. from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County, dated July 28, 2016, and March 8, 2017, respectively. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the time for the appellant to serve and file a reply brief on the appeals is enlarged until January 19, 2018.Plasez 1000, LLC, res, v. 291 Fountain, 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 March 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 to the extent that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 22, 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.U.S. Bank, National Association, etc., res, v. Roslyn Tauber, appellant 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, Rockland County, dated May 23, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until February 13, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Nelson and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Gilbert Lipton, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to serve and file a supplemental reply brief on an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered March 4, 2015.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Nelson and Christopher, JJ.Kelly Hinz, etc. ap, v. Wantagh Union Free School District, res — Motion by the appellants to enlarge the time to perfect appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 22, 2016, and a judgment of the same court dated January 31, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the appellants’ time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until February 6, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeals 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, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.Wells Fargo, res, v. Philip L. McKenzie, et al, defendants; Adam Plotch, nonparty-ap — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until February 12, 2018, to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 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 to the extent that the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until February 7, 2018, the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Nelson and Christopher, JJ.MATTER of Jalisa Rene Dudley, etc., ap, v. Westchester County Department of Social Services, res — Motion by the appellant to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated October 27, 2016, on the ground that it has been rendered academic.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Nelson and Christopher, JJ.Frady Zeidman, res, v. Natan Zeidman, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for poor person relief and the assignment of counsel on those portions of an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 21, 2017, which concern issues other than custody and visitation.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 for leave to prosecute those portions of the appeal which concern issues other than custody and visitation on the original papers is denied as unnecessary as this Court previously directed in a decision and order on motion dated August 23, 2017, that those portions of the appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the parties, who 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 motion is otherwise denied; 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, Natan Zeidman 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 Supreme Court proceedings to be transcribed for those portions of the appeal which concern issues other than custody and visitation; 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 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 those portions of the appeal which concern issues other than custody and visitation; 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 show cause why those portions of the appeal which concern issues other than custody and visitation should or should not be dismissed.BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Charles D. McClinton, ap — Motion by assigned counsel to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered November 18, 2016, and for the assignment of new counsel. The appellant was granted poor person relief on February 8, 2017, and by decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 14, 2017, the following named attorney was assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:Scott Lockwood, Esq.1476 Deer Park Avenue, Suite 3North Babylon, NY 11703Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been 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:Steven A. Feldman, Esq.626 RXR PlazaWest Tower, 6th FloorUniondale, NY 11556and 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.SCHEINKMAN, J.P., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Nelson and Christopher, JJ.Yvonne E. Chaplin, ap, v. National Grid res — 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, dated February 25, 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 appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until January 19, 2018, and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Nelson and Christopher, JJ.MATTER of John Gray-Owner, ap, v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal for the State of New York, respondent-res, Christy Denckla intervenors-res — Motion by the respondent-respondent to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 14, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the respondent-respondent ‘s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until January 19, 2018, and the respondent-respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Nelson and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Joseph Borelli, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to prosecute appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, rendered May 20, 2016, and an order of the same court dated February 23, 2017, as a poor person, and for the assignment of counsel. By order to show cause dated July 6, 2017, inter alia, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why the appeal from the judgment rendered May 20, 2016, should not be dismissed on the ground that the notice of appeal was untimely, counsel was assigned to respond to the order to show cause, and the appellant’s motion was held in abeyance in the interim. By order to show cause dated October 11, 2017, the appellant’s motion and this Court’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment rendered May 20, 2016, were held in abeyance, the appellant was directed to show cause why the appeal from the order dated February 23, 2017, should not be dismissed on the ground that the order was not appealable either by right or by permission, and counsel was assigned to respond to the order to show cause.Now, upon the orders to show cause dated July 6, 2017, and October 11, 2017, respectively, and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the appellant’s motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment rendered May 20, 2016, is granted, and the appeal is dismissed (see CPL 460.30); and it is further,ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal from the order dated February 23, 2017, is granted, and the appeal is dismissed (see CPL 450.10, 450.15); and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s motion is denied as academic.BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. David Haridat, ap — On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 29, 2017, 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 for leave to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered July 5, 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 relation 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:Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq.The Legal Aid Society199 Water Street – 5th 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., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.MATTER of Cecile D. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Kassia D. (Anonymous), respondent-appellant; Cheryl v. (Anonymous), nonparty-res — (and another title) — Appeals by Kassia D. from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County, both dated November 15, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it isORDERED that the appeals in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the respondent-appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the respondent-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 ; and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this , the respondent-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 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 it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or(4) if the respondent-appellant is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeals, a motion in this Court for leave to prosecute the appeals as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101. Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit from the respondent-appellant, stating either that he or she qualified for assigned counsel upon application to the Family Court and that his or her financial status has not changed since that time, or that he or she had retained counsel or appeared pro se in the Family Court, and listing his or her assets and income; or(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeals; and it is further,ORDERED that if none of the actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) 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 appeals should or should not be dismissed.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Nelson and Christopher, JJ.Collier, Halpern, Newberg & Nolletti, ap, v. Christian Na, res — Motion by the respondent to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated November 29, 2016. Separate motion by the appellant, inter alia, to preclude the respondent from filing a brief.Upon the papers filed in support of the motions and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the respondent’s motion is granted, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until February 5, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s motion is denied.BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Antoinette Gravagna, res, v. Joseph Gravagna, ap — Appeal by Joseph Gravagna from a decision of the Family Court, Rockland County, dated October 30, 2017.On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies from an unsigned transcript (see Ojeda v. Metropolitan Playhouse, Inc., 120 AD2d 717).SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Mark Perry, ap — Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 18, 2016.Upon the stipulation of the appellant and the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated December 5, 2017, it isORDERED that the appeal is marked withdrawn.Denworth Frederick, ap, v. City of New York res — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 16, 2016, insofar as taken against DeFazio & Sons, Construction.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 insofar as taken against DeFazio & Sons, Construction.Don Lehman ap, v. James Damascus res — Application by the appellant Don Lehman on appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 5, 2017, to withdraw his appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal by the appellant Don Lehman is marked withdrawn.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Okieto Wade, ap — Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 11, 2010.Upon the stipulation of the appellant and the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated December 8, 2017, it isORDERED that the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Priscilla Hall, J.P.; Cohen, Lasalle and Connolly, JJ.MATTER of Kent Jacobs, etc. res, v. Samuel Jacobs, Sr., ap — Motion by the appellant for leave to reargue appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Dutchess County, both dated April 23, 2015, which were determined by decision and order of this Court dated April 6, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.HALL, J.P., COHEN, LASALLE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.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 No. Applicant Name(s) Extended DeadlineAiken v. Liotta2017-09206Rosemary Wiltshire+1February 15, 2018Antonyshyn v. Tishman2017-03130ABC Construction Contracting,Construction CorporationInc.March 12, 2018Burt v. MTA Bus Company2017-03623MTA Bus CompanyFebruary 5, 2018Calderone v. Molloy College 2017-01160Craig Calderone+1January 19, 2018Cansev v. City of New York2017-06191City of New YorkJanuary 12, 2018Dahari v. Villafana 2016-05543Signature Bank+1January 26, 2018Fox v. Mark2017-02781CNR Health Care Network, Inc.Ninel MaymanJude JeanJanuary 31, 2018Grieve v. MCRT Northeast2017-08098Ann M. GrieveConstruction, LLCDavid J. GrieveMarch 14, 2018Halberstam v. Port Authority2017-07537Hershel Halberstamof New York and New JerseyLeah Halberstam February 26, 2018Title Docket No. Applicant Name(s) Extended DeadlineLaura Andrew, Inc. v. Holub2017-04854DLRA Group, LLCFebruary 2, 2018Enterprises, Inc.Marcelli v. Lorraine Arms 2017-02244Sandra MarcelliJanuary 5, 2018ApartmentsMartinez v. Kuhl2017-08125Helena KimAndrew M. KimFebruary 20, 2018Matter of Gagedeen v. Ponte2017-07245Kristofer GagedeenFebruary 5, 2018People v. Ross2016-00908Allen RossJanuary 11, 2018PFT Technology, LLC v2017-01757Robert WieserWieserJanuary 31, 2018Prignoli v. L.A. Fitness2017-07231Robert PrignoliInternational, LLCFebruary 20, 2018Romanelli v. Jones2017-03507Keith B. LescaleHudson Valley PerinatalConsulting, PLLCJanuary 9, 2018Serebryany v. Royal Seafood2017-07301Boris SerebryanyInternational, Inc. January 19, 2018US Bank v. Tsimbalisty2017-05107Brighton Seven Management+1Corp.February 5, 2018U.S. Bank National 2017-05020Donovan StainesAssociation v. StainesJanuary 25, 2018Wells Fargo Bank v. Meisels2017-07916Chaim M. MeiselsBoard of Directors CongregationKhal Binyan David D’IhelFebruary 8, 2018Weinberg v. Picker2017-07542Barry PickerMeshulem Auerbach, Picker &AuerbachPicker, Auerbach andWeinberg, P.C.February 5, 2018By Priscilla Hall, J.P.; Sgroi, Cohen and Connolly, JJ.Daniel Cafferata, ap, v. Gerilyn Cafferata, res — On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 2, 2018, in the above-entitled case is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order on motion is substituted therefor:Appeals by Daniel Cafferata from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated April 13, 2017, and a judgment of the same court dated July 26, 2017. By order to show cause dated November 17, 2017, the parties were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeals in the above-entitled action for failure to comply with a dated September 27, 2017, issued pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]).Now, upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeals is denied; 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, 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 in the Supreme Court action 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 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 the appellant fails to file the affidavit or affirmation within 30 days after the date of this decision and order on motion, the Court will dismiss the appeals, without further notice.HALL, J.P., SGROI, COHEN and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Brian Chambers, ap — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until January 26, 2018 to serve and file a brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered August 22, 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 respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until January 10, 2018, the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.Brendon Lewis, plf-res, v. Myrtle Realty NY, LLC defendants- res, Zenco Group, Inc., ap, et al., def — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 3-week enlargement of time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 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 to the extent that the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until January 16, 2018, the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Boanerges Melendez-Torres, ap — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 30-day enlargement of time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, rendered August 5, 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 respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until January 17, 2018, the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.
