Appellate Division First Department Cases decided on: January 4, 2018 By Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Kapnick, Kern, Moulton, JJ.

4467. PEOPLE, res, v. Cristobal Colon, def-ap — Glenn A. Garber, P.C., New York (Glenn A. Garber of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Stephen J. Kress of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia M. Nuez, J.), rendered January 7, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.The Court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The record supports the court’s finding that the totality of the information available to the police supported a reasonable conclusion that there was a weapon in defendant’s van that posed an actual, specific danger to the officers’ safety, justifying a limited protective search of the specific area associated with defendant’s suspicious behavior (see People v. Mundo, 99 NY2d 55, 57-59 [2002]). During a lawful traffic stop at a particular location known to police for significant drug activity and numerous recent shootings, the police saw defendant leaning down and reaching into an area below the center area of the dashboard. After a slight delay, defendant responded to the officers’ request for a license and registration by answering that he had those documents in his back pocket. Meanwhile, defendant continued to use his right leg to push against a lower compartment area beneath the dashboard, and he appeared to be nervous. After defendant got out of the van as directed, the totality of circumstances warranted the limited intrusion of shining a flashlight on the lower compartment area that defendant had been pushing with his right leg (cf. People v. Hardee, 126 AD3d 626 [1st Dept 2015], affd __ NY3d __, 2017 NY Slip Op 08038 ["(D)efendant's furtive behavior, suspicious actions in looking into the back seat on multiple occasions and refusal to follow the officers' legitimate directions" justified the limited intrusion into the vehicle after the occupants had been removed and frisked]). As a result, an officer saw what he recognized to be a bag of drugs in the partly opened compartment.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Gische, J.P., Webber, Oing, Singh, Moulton, JJ.5241. In re Michael Chorney, pet, v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services res — Law Office of Elliot S. Schlissel, Lynbrook (Andrea E. Miller of counsel), for pet — Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Mark H. Shawhan of counsel), for res — Determination, after a hearing, of respondent New York State Office of Children and Family Services, dated February 23, 2015, which sustained an indicated report of child maltreatment against petitioner Michael Chorney, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Alexander W. Hunter, J.], entered January 12, 2016) dismissed, without costs.The determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Parker v. Carrion, 90 AD3d 512 [1st Dept 2011]; Matter of Irving v. Carrion, 120 AD3d 500, 500 [2d Dept 2014]).Respondent met its burden of proving maltreatment by petitioner by a preponderance of the evidence. The out-of-court statements of then 3 -year-old child, T.W., that petitioner kicked him during a toilet-training session, were corroborated so as to ensure reliability and to allow admission into evidence (see Family Court Act §1046[a][vi]; Matter of Tristan R., 63 AD3d 1075 [2d Dept 2009]; Matter of Department of Social Servs. v. Waleska M., 195 AD2d 507 [2d Dept 1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 660 [1993]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 116 [1987]). The level of corroboration required under the Family Court Act is not the same as that required under the Penal Law. ”Family Court Act §1046 broadly provides that the child’s prior out of court statements may be corroborated by [a]ny other evidence tending to support reliability of the previous statements, including, but not limited to the types of evidence defined in this subdivision” (Tristan R., 63 AD3d at 1076 [internal quotation marks omitted]). T.W. made repeated and consistent statements that petitioner kicked him in the penis. These statements were corroborated by notations in the hospital records, made shortly after the incident, indicating that T.W. sustained mild penile swelling, significant swelling to head of the penis, ecchymosis to both thighs and left scrotum. The records also stated that the examining physician reported that the injuries were consistent with an impact.The ALJ also properly considered T.W.’s consistent, unrecanted description of the incident, as well as T.W.’s lack of a motive to fabricate, as contrasted by petitioner’s inconsistent and waffling accounts of the incident.Substantial evidence also supported the determination that petitioner’s maltreatment of T.W. was relevant and reasonably related to petitioner’s employment as a special education teacher (see Social Services Law §422[8][c][ii]).For the first time in this proceeding, petitioner argues that the ALJ’s decision was erroneous because petitioner was not a “person legally responsible” for T.W. under Social Services Law §412 and, therefore, could not have maltreated T.W. under Social Services Law §422. Petitioner’s argument is unpreserved, and we decline to review it (Matter of Peckham v. Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, 430 [2009]); Matter of Khan v. New York State Dept. of Health, 96 NY2d 879 [2001]).Accordingly, we find that respondent’s prosecution of petitioner was proper, as was the determination of maltreatment.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Tom, Kahn, Kern, JJ.5248. PEOPLE, res, v. Johnny Mason, def-ap — Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Benjamin Wiener of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alan Gadlin of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J. at motions; Arlene D. Goldberg, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered December 21, 2015, as amended January 5, 2016, convicting defendant of 18 counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and 17 counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 16 to 32 years, unanimously affirmed.The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel’s midtrial request for a CPL article 730 competency examination (see Pate v. Robinson, 383 US 375 [1966]; People v. Tortorici, 92 NY2d 757, 766 [1999], cert denied 528 US 834 [1999]; People v. Morgan, 87 NY2d 878, 881 [1995]). The issue of competency arose for the first time in the midst of trial, when defense counsel relayed to the court his conversation with a friend of defendant who had expressed concerns about defendant’s mental health and had recounted some bizarre statements defendant had allegedly made. However, defendant’s understanding of the charges and ability to assist in his defense was evident throughout all pretrial and trial proceedings, as well for the remainder of the trial (see People v. Russell, 74 NY2d 901 [1989]). Moreover, the timing of the phone call and the surrounding circumstances suggest that, despite his disclaimers, defendant arranged for the phone call and fabricated the delusions relayed by the caller, in an effort to disrupt the trial.The motion court correctly denied, as untimely, defendant’s motion to suppress, under Payton v. New York (445 US 573 [1980]), the fruits of his allegedly unlawful warrantless arrest at the men’s shelter where he had been residing. The 45-day period in which to make such a motion (CPL 255.20[1], 710.40[1]) had elapsed and successor defense counsel failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay. The original defense counsel had ample opportunity, and all the necessary information, to make a timely motion, and defendant’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. The fact that the motion court also opined that the motion lacked merit does not require us to reach the merits; the issue is timeliness of a motion rather than preservation of an issue, and thus the portion of CPL 470.05(2) referring to issues actually decided is inapplicable.In any event, we conclude that the motion would have been unsuccessful, even if timely made. The record shows that employees of the shelter lawfully permitted the police to enter (see People v. Nalbandian, 188 AD2d 328 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 890 [1993]). Furthermore, defendant’s original counsel did not render ineffective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v. Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]) by failing to make a timely motion. Given the prevailing law, it was objectively reasonable for the original counsel to forgo this motion, and, as indicated, the motion would not have succeeded. Moreover, since the fruits of the alleged Payton violation were tangential to defendant’s guilt, defendant has not demonstrated that even a successful suppression motion would have affected the outcome of the trial.After the motion court dismissed a count of criminal possession of stolen property on the ground that legally insufficient evidence had been presented to the grand jury, it granted the People leave to re-present that count, and the People lawfully did so. The record fails to support defendant’s assertion that the court actually authorized a re-presentation of a different charge.We have considered and rejected defendant’s arguments for dismissal of the counts relating to a nontestifying victim. In this case involving stolen credit and debit cards, one of the eight victims did not testify. As a result, there was no direct evidence of the circumstances under which her property was taken. However, upon our review of the extensive circumstantial evidence, we conclude that, as to each element of the charges at issue, the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Porter, 119 AD3d 438, 439 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1046 [2014]; People v. Meador, 279 AD2d 327 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 865 [2001]), and that the larceny charge satisfied the requirements of geographical jurisdiction as set forth in CPL 20.20 and 20.40.We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence, which we note is deemed by operation of law to be a sentence of 10 to 20 years.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Tom, Kahn, Kern, JJ.5267. PEOPLE, res, v. Kyle Harleston, def-ap — Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alice Wiseman of counsel), for res — An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (James Burke, J.), rendered August 3, 2016,Said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive,It is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.Counsel for appellant is referred to§606.5, Rules of the AppellateDivision, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5358-5359. PEOPLE, res, v. Ralph Ben Cotto, def-ap — Usher Law Group, P.C., Brooklyn (Thomas S. Mirigliano of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jonathon Krois of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered February 2, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of two counts of operating as a major trafficker, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 12 years, unanimously affirmed. Purported appeal from orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 28, 2015, to the extent they denied in part defendant’s omnibus motions, unanimously dismissed, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.Defendant’s challenge to the validity of his guilty plea is unpreserved (see People v. Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 381 [2015]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty, after fully waiving his rights under Boykin v. Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]).To the extent the limited record permits review, it establishes the geographic jurisdiction of New York State and County (see People v. Carvajal, 6 NY3d 305 [2005]; People v. Kassebaum, 264 AD2d 664, 666 [1st Dept 1999], affd 95 NY2d 611 [2001], cert denied 532 US 1069 [2001]).Defendant’s guilty plea forecloses appellate review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury (see People v. Kazmarick, 52 NY2d 322, 326 [1981]).This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5360. Amaury Abreu, plf-res, v. Police Officer Otis Casey def-res, William Adu-Agyei, def-ap — Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, Melville (Nathan M. Shapiro of counsel), for ap — Frekhtman & Associates, Brooklyn (Eileen Kaplan of counsel), for Amaury Abreu, res — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Emma Grunberg of counsel), for Otis Casey, The New York City Police Department and the City of New York, res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered on or about November 22, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant William Adu-Agyei’s (defendant) motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.This action for personal injuries arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 7, 2012. Defendant was operating one of the vehicles involved in the accident.On August 25, 2015, 13 days before the statute of limitations expired, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to, among other things, add defendant as a party. A copy of the proposed amended summons and complaint were annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers.By order dated February 4, 2016, and entered on February 5, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s motion. Upon entry of the order granting leave, plaintiff had until February 18, 2016 to serve defendant with the amended pleadings within the applicable statute of limitations (see Perez v. Paramount Communications, 92 NY2d 749, 755-756 [1999]; Long v. Sowande, 27 AD3d 247, 248 [1st Dept 2006]).On February 10, 2016, plaintiff served all parties including defendant with a copy of the February 4, 2016 order with notice of entry, annexing the amended summons and amended verified complaint. Those papers were filed with the Clerk of the Court on that same date.Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff was not required to serve him with the motion to amend before the Supreme Court could decide the motion (see Eastern States Elec. Contrs. v. Crow Constr. Co., 153 AD2d 522, 524 [1st Dept 1989]). Plaintiff’s filing of the motion to amend and annexed proposed amended pleadings tolled the applicable statute of limitations (see Perez, 92 NY2d at 755-756).In addition, the record shows that plaintiff’s claims against defendant were interposed eight days before the statute of limitations expired, as the amended pleadings were annexed to the February 4, 2016 order with notice of entry, which was served upon defendant and filed with the Clerk of the Court on February 10, 2016. Plaintiff’s failure to file the amended pleadings as a separate docket entry is not fatal to his maintaining the action against defendant, because the amended pleadings were timely filed with the Clerk of the Court after being served upon defendant (see CPLR 305), and defendant has not shown any prejudice (see CPLR 2001). Further, CPLR 2001 authorizes the court to direct plaintiff to correct this type of filing mistake (see Matter of Miller v. Waters, 51 AD3d 113, 117-118 [3d Dept 2008]).This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5361-5362. In re Jerell P., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Qubilah G., res-ap, Administration for Children’s Services, pet-res — Anne Reiniger, New York, for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Carolyn Walther of counsel), for res — Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the child.—Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sarah P. Cooper, J.), entered on or about October 27, 2016, which, upon granting petitioner agency’s motion for summary judgment, found that respondent mother had derivatively neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from decision and order, same court, Judge and date, which granted the motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition.The agency made a prima facie showing of derivative neglect as to the subject child, based on prior orders finding that the mother had neglected and derivatively neglected her four older children (see Matter of Camarrie B. [Maria R.], 107 AD3d 409 [1st Dept 2013]). The prior neglect findings, issued over a two-year period between 2014 and 2016, support a finding that the mother, by reason of her cognitive limitations and impaired judgment, was unable to care for any child (see Matter of Phoenix J. [Kodee J.], 129 AD3d 603 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of T-Shauna K., 63 AD3d 420 [1st Dept 2009]). Further, the conduct underlying the prior findings of neglect was sufficiently proximate in time to the derivative neglect proceeding to support the conclusion that the conditions still existed (see T-Shauna K., 63 AD3d at 420). Moreover, the repeated findings of neglect against the mother and her ongoing failure to participate in services as evidenced by the fact that her children were never returned to her care and by the transfer of guardianship, all established that the conditions that led to the prior findings still existed and that the child would be at risk in her care (see Matter of Neveah AA. [Alia CC.], 124 AD3d 938 [3d Dept 2015]).In opposition to the agency’s motion, the mother failed to rebut the presumption that the conditions leading the neglect of the child’s siblings had not been remedied (see Matter of Phoenix J. at 603-604).This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5363. Kathleen Bruno, plf-res, v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, def-res, Hudson Transit Lines, Inc., def-ap — Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP, New York (Kimberly A. Ricciardi of counsel), for ap — Hannum Feretic Prendergast & Merlino, LLC, New York (William C. Lawlor of counsel), for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, res — Ephrem J. Wertenteil, New York, for Kathleen Bruno, res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered on or about April 18, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant Hudson’s motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Issues of fact exist as to whether Hudson breached its duty as a common carrier to provide plaintiff with a safe place to disembark (see Malawer v. New York City Tr. Auth., 18 AD3d 293, 294-295 [1st Dept 2005], affd 6 NY3d 800 [2006]; Conetta v. New York City Tr. Auth., 307 AD2d 333, 333 [2d Dept 2003]). The record shows that 15 or 20 passengers exited the bus before plaintiff. As she alighted, she stepped into a hole on the sidewalk and fell. The bus driver corroborated this testimony, stating that the hole was on the sidewalk, “[w]ithin one step” of where plaintiff disembarked. The bus driver further admitted that the hole caused plaintiff to fall. Additionally, plaintiff testified that, upon seeing where she fell, the bus driver exclaimed, “[Y]ou fell in that hole, they’re supposed to fix that hole.” Under the circumstances, where plaintiff stepped into a hole immediately upon alighting from the bus, the fact that a number of passengers safely descended before she did does not entitled Hudson to summary judgment (see Orlick v. Granit Hotel & Country Club, 30 NY2d 246, 250 [1972]; Noskewicz v. City of New York, 155 AD2d 646, 646 [2d Dept 1989]).Issues of fact as to, among other things, whether Hudson breached its contractual duty to notify Port Authority of any needed repairs at the gate where the accident occurred compel denial of summary judgment on Port Authority’s contractual indemnification claim.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5365. PEOPLE, res, v. Anthony Gregory, def-ap — Rosemary Herbert,, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Lauren Stephens-Davidowitz of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (John T. Hughes of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered January 8, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of conspiracy in the first degree, attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 5 to 15 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence on the conspiracy conviction to 3 1/3 to 10 years and reducing the sentence on the weapon possession conviction to 3 years, with 5 years’ postrelease supervision, and otherwise affirmed.We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5366. Carlos Perez, plf-ap, v. Victor Steckler, def-res — Mitchell Dranow, Sea Cliff, for ap — Richard T. Lau & Associates, Jericho (Irene A. Schembri of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered May 26, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by his testimony that as he was driving next to plaintiff’s parked vehicle, plaintiff suddenly opened his driver’s side door, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law §1214, causing defendant to strike the door, and defendant was unable to avoid the accident (see Tavarez v. Castillo Herrasme, 140 AD3d 453, 453 [1st Dept 2016]).In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether he violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §1214, or whether defendant could have avoided the accident.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5367-5368. Siras Partners LLC plf-res, v. Activity Kuafu Hudson Yards LLC def-ap — - – - - [And a third party action] Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York (Janice Mac Avoy of counsel), for ap — Cole Schotz P.C., New York (Joseph Barbiere of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered March 31, 2017, and June 6, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as against defendant 462-470 11th Avenue LLC, and granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents pertaining to defendants’ waiver of the attorney-client privilege, unanimously affirmed, with costs.By disclosing to a third party by email certain advice given to them by counsel, defendants waived the attorney-client privilege as to other documents pertaining to that advice (see Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 27 NY3d 616, 624 [2016]; Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP v. Kaplan, 118 AD3d 492 [1st Dept 2014]).The complaint alleges sufficient wrongful conduct on the part of defendant 462-470 11th Avenue LLC, an affiliate of the other defendants, to support the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as against that defendant (see Weinreb v. 37 Apts. Corp., 97 AD3d 54, 59 [1st Dept 2012]).This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5369. Mai Rahhal plf-res, v. Sarika Downing, R.N. def, Anacleta Villamor, R.N. def-ap — Turken & Heath, LLP, Armonk (Jason D. Turken of counsel), for ap — Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C. New York (Arnold E. DiJoseph, III of counsel) for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered June 29, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction due to lack of effective service, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Appellants are doctors and a nurse who were employed by defendant Bronx Lebanon Hospital at the time plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice action. Plaintiffs properly served appellants, as well as the hospital, by delivering copies of the summons and complaint to the hospital’s Department of Risk Management and leaving them with the Coordinator of Risk Management, and thereafter mailing copies for each defendant.Although appellants contend that their actual place of business is located in the Bronx Lebanon buildings where they provide medical services, for purposes of service of process pursuant to CPLR 308(2), Bronx Lebanon’s Risk Management Office constitutes their “actual place of business” (see Colon v. Beekman Downtown Hosp., 111 AD2d 841 [2nd Dept 1985]; see also Leung v. New York Univ., 2016 WL 1084141, *8-9, 2016 US Dist LEXIS 34764, *27-29 [SD NY 2016]; Scheib v. Curran, 227 AD2d 328 [1st Dept 1996], affd 89 NY2d 968 [1997]; cf. Glasser v. Keller, 149 Misc 2d 875, 878-879 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1991], affd on opinion below 197 AD2d 561 [2nd Dept 1993]). The Risk Management Coordinator accepted service on behalf of defendant Bronx Lebanon, which was sued as the individual appellants’ employer, to be liable for their actions pursuant to respondeat superior (see Leung at *8-9). The Risk Management Department was well suited to accept process on behalf of the hospital’s employees (see Di Giuseppe v. Di Giuseppe, 70 Misc 2d 188 [Civil Ct of the City of New York, NY County 1972] [personnel office]; Leung, supra [general counsel's office]).In the cases relied on by appellants, the defendant doctors were not employed by the hospital where service was attempted, and thus service was not proper pursuant to CPLR 308(2) (see Samuel v. Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 88 AD3d 979 [2d Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 810 [2012]; Kearney v. Neurosurgeons of N.Y., 31 AD3d 390 [2nd Dept 2006]).This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5370. Barbara Dzidowska, plf-res, v. The Related Companies, LP Defendants-res-ap, Fujitec America Inc. doing business as Fujitec Serge of New York, Defendant-Appellant-res — Swartz Law Offices, New York (Gerald N. Swartz of counsel), for appellant-res — London Fischer LLP, New York (Brian P. McLaughlin of counsel), for respondents-ap — The Platta Law Firm, PLLC, New York (Brian J. Vannella of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered November 21, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant 400 E. 84th Street Associates, LP’s motion for summary judgment, and denied defendant Fujitec America Inc.’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Supreme Court correctly denied 400 E. 84th Street (the owner) summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as issues of fact exist as to whether the owner of the apartment building where plaintiff fell while entering an elevator had notice of a misleveling/releveling condition of the elevator (see Isaac v. 1515 Macombs, LLC, 84 AD3d 457, 458 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 708 [2011]; Bonifacio v. 910-930 S. Blvd., 295 AD2d 86, 91 [1st Dept 2002]). The record contained ample evidence from which a jury could find that the owner had actual notice of a recurring, misleveling problem with the elevator, based on prior similar incidents shown in the building’s logbook and based on service records of Fujitec, which had contracted to maintain the elevator (see Martin v. Kone, Inc., 94 AD3d 446, 447 [1st Dept 2012]; Gjonaj v. Otis El. Co., 38 AD3d 384, 385 [1st Dept 2007]). Fujitec’s servicing of the elevator in response to those prior complaints raises an issue of fact as to notice (see Ardolaj v. Two Broadway Land Co., 276 AD2d 264, 265 [1st Dept 2000]).Supreme Court correctly denied the owner conditional summary judgment on its cross claim for common-law indemnification against Fujitec, as there is an issue of fact as to whether the owner’s liability, if any, is vicarious (see Linares v. Fairfield Views, 231 AD2d 418, 420 [1st Dept 1996], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 89 NY2d 978 [1997]). Due to the adverse inference charge the court previously granted against the owner, a jury might find that the owner had actual notice of the misleveling defect on the day of the accident, before plaintiff’s injury. In addition, given the adverse inference charge, a jury could find that the owner was negligent in either failing to timely notify Fujitec of the misleveling defect, or in failing to remove the elevator from service. Such negligence would bar the owner from obtaining common-law indemnification from Fujitec (see Martins v. Little 40 Worth Assoc., Inc., 72 AD3d 483, 484 [1st Dept 2010]).Supreme Court correctly denied Fujitec’s motion for summary judgment. Given the disputed issues of fact as to notice of the misleveling/releveling condition of the elevator, and the fact that the accident occurred less than a week after Fujitec had serviced the elevator for releveling, an issue of fact exists as to whether Fujitec failed to maintain the elevator in a reasonably safe operating condition (see Rogers v. Dorchester Assoc., 32 NY2d 553, 559 [1973]).In addition, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur precludes summary judgment (Dermatossian v. New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 226 [1986]; see Ezzard v. One E. Riv. Place Realty Co., LLC, 129 AD3d 159, 162 [1st Dept 2015]). ”The misleveling of an elevator does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence” (Rojas v. New York El. & Elec. Corp., 150 AD3d 537, 537-538 [1st Dept 2017]). Further, the misleveling was apparently caused by an instrumentality within Fujitec’s exclusive control and was not due to any voluntary action on plaintiff’s part. The application of res ipsa loquitur is not “overcome by [Fujitec's] evidence that the elevator was regularly inspected and maintained” (Ardolaj, 276 AD2d at 265). Given the applicability of res ipsa loquitur, plaintiff was not required to identify a malfunction or defect in the elevator (Kambat v. St. Francis Hosp., 89 NY2d 489, 494 [1997]).We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5371. PEOPLE, res, v. Kofi Amankwah, def-ap — Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Adrienne M. Gantt of counsel), for ap — An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Abraham Clott, J.), rendered March 2, 2016,Said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive,It is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.Counsel for appellant is referred to§606.5, Rules of the AppellateDivision, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5372. In re Corey J., and Others, Children Under the Age of Eighteen, etc., Corey J., res-ap, Administration for Children’s Services, pet-res — Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Barbara Graves-Poller of counsel), for res — Karen P. Simmons, The Children’s Law Center, Brooklyn (Rachel J. Stanton of counsel), attorney for the children.—Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Robert D. Hettleman, J.), entered on or about June 22, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, found that respondent father neglected the oldest of the subject children and derivatively neglected the others, unanimously affirmed, without costs.The court properly found that petitioner Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the father neglected the oldest child and derivatively neglected the other children, based on the testimony of an ACS child protective specialist and the mother, the medical records, and the father’s admissions (see Family Court Act §1012[f][i][A] and [B]; Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]). The medical records and the testimony of the child protective specialist and the mother reflect a long-standing pattern of domestic violence by the father against the mother, in the presence of the children, and the use of excessive corporal punishment on the oldest child. Although the father denied engaging in such conduct and attributed the violence to the mother, he admitted grabbing her by the throat and “popping” the child on the hand. The hospital records reflected that the oldest child was afraid of the father and trained hospital personnel did not find that this fear was feigned.The father argues that the oldest child’s statements were vague, failed to indicate when the events took place, and were not sufficiently corroborated. Out of court statements of a child are admissible “and if properly corroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect” (Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 118 [1987]; see Family Court Act §1046[a][vi]). Family Court judges have “considerable discretion” to determine whether a child’s out of court statements describing neglect have been corroborated (see Matter of Christina F., 74 NY2d 532, 536 [1989]).The child’s statements were sufficiently corroborated in that the parents both testified that the incidents he described actually occurred, although the father disputed the child’s account of what transpired. Moreover, the child’s statements, which were reflected in the medical records, were consistent with the testimony of the child protective specialist and the mother regarding the domestic violence and excessive corporal punishment by the father.The court correctly concluded that the father’s use of excessive corporal punishment on the child, which was supported by the record, demonstrated a flawed understanding of his parental duty such that the younger children were derivatively neglected by him and were at risk of harm (see Matter of Angie G.[Jose D.G.], 111 AD3d 404, 404-405 [1st Dept 2013]).This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5373. Cathy Pichler, plf-ap, v. Joan Jackson, def-res — Cathy L. Pichler, appellant pro se. Feder Kaszovitz LLP, New York (David Sack of counsel), for res — Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered August 18, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on her third and fourth causes of action, seeking an accounting and apportionment, pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) §1201, respectively, and leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously reversed, on the law, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on her third and fourth causes of action and leave to amend the complaint granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.As tenants in common, the parties have a quasi-trust or fiduciary relation with regard to the property they commonly hold, supporting plaintiff’s third cause of action for an accounting (see Minion v. Warner, 238 NY 413 [1924]; Thayer v. Leggett, 229 NY 152, 157—158 [1920]). Even absent any such common-law obligation, a statutory duty to account would exist, pursuant to RPAPL 1201, entitling plaintiff to recover under her fourth cause of action (see Degliuomini v. Degliuomini, 12 AD3d 634, 635 [2d Dept 2004]). Defendant’s claim of prematurity is rejected. Defendant shall provide an accounting, including an itemization of the monies received and payments made in operating the property. After providing the accounting, plaintiff will be permitted to interpose her specific objections. The bona fides of the objections will then be resolved by the court. Nor is the accounting premature because there is simultaneously ongoing discovery on the parties’ claims.Leave to amend the pleadings must “be freely given” (CPLR 3025[b]), and should have been granted here given the nature of the parties’ relationship (see Minion v. Warner, supra; Thayer v. Leggett, supra).This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5374. PEOPLE, res, v. Michelle Cuthbertson, def-ap — Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Katheryne M. Martone of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Kelly L. Smith of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), rendered January 21, 2016, unanimously affirmed.Although we find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5375. Victor Manuel Santiago, plf-res, v. Pioneer Transportation Corp. def-ap — Silverman Shin & Byrne PLLC, New York (Wayne S. Stanton for counsel), for ap — Law Offices of Ariel Aminov, PLLC, Islip (Ariel Aminov of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered March 4, 2016, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.On January 21, 2014, a school bus owned and operated by defendants collided with the rear of a truck plaintiff claimed, by affidavit, that he was driving. In contrast, the defendant bus driver averred that plaintiff was not the truck driver based on his observance of that driver’s appearance, which contrasted with photographs of plaintiff, which defendant viewed. Thus, the court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because, “‘viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,’” defendants raised an issue of fact as to the identity of the other driver (Vega v. Restani Cost. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]). ”[W]hether a particular defendant owes a duty to a particular plaintiff is a question of fact” for the jury (Kimmell v. Schaefer, 89 NY2d 257, 263 [1996]). The bus driver’s affidavit was not impermissibly self-serving as having contradicted any of his prior testimony (cf. Caraballo v. Kingsbridge Apt. Corp., 59 AD3d 270 [1st Dept 2009]). It is for the jury to resolve issues of credibility as between the conflicting affidavits of the parties concerning the identity of the truck driver (see Ocean v. Hossain, 127 AD3d 402, 403 [1st Dept 2015]; Agli v. Turner Constr. Co., 237 AD2d 173, 174 [1st Dept 1997]).This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5376. Fran Lewis, plf-ap, v. Kenneth H. Treitel, DDS def-res — The Mandel Law Firm, New York (William M. Boyle of counsel), for ap — Amabile & Erman, P.C., Staten Island (Alexandra Formica of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered October 11, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to the extent of dismissing the complaint as time barred as it relates to treatment rendered by them prior to November 23, 2011, unanimously affirmed, without costs.The record establishes that treatment prior to November 23, 2011, the period beyond the 2 —year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214—a), consisted of isolated and discrete dental procedures, not for the condition complained of, a cyst in plaintiff’s jaw. Accordingly, the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply to the treatment of these teeth (see Galecki v. Omnicare Dental, 121 AD3d 594 [1st Dept 2014]; Marrone v. Klein, 33 AD3d 546 [1st Dept 2006]). That defendants may have negligently failed to diagnose the condition does not toll the statute, since the failure to establish a course of treatment is not, in and of itself, a course of treatment for the purposes of tolling the statute (Nykorchuck v. Henriques, 78 NY2d 255, 259 [1991], affd 78 NY2d 255 [1991]; Trebach v. Brown, 250 AD2d 449 [1st Dept 1998]). While the doctrine would apply if defendants had been treating plaintiff for the underlying symptoms of the cyst, albeit incorrectly, plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that defendants treated her for symptoms ultimately traced to her cyst (compare Chestnut v. Bobb-McKoy, 94 AD3d 659 [1st Dept 2012]).We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Singh, JJ.5377-5377A. PEOPLE, res, v. Rodney Henderson, def-ap — Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Katheryne M. Martone of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Andrew E. Seewald of counsel), for res — Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered June 7, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 16 years to life, unanimously affirmed.The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The People’s expert testimony warranted the conclusion, under the reasonable doubt standard, that defendant was the source of a partial latent fingerprint recovered from a burglarized apartment (see People v. Walker, 106 AD3d 432 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1044 [2014]). We find no basis for disturbing the jury’s evaluation of conflicting expert testimony introduced by the People and defendant.The People’s expert testimony sufficiently complied with the court’s in limine ruling on the permissible scope of that testimony, and the court did not materially change its ruling during trial. In particular, the court never precluded the fingerprint experts from testifying that defendant’s exemplar print matched the latent print. Instead, the court precluded the experts from using the word “match” in conjunction with certain other language, such as “100 percent certain,” which the experts ultimately avoided. Accordingly, defendant was not unfairly surprised by the testimony.We also reject defendant’s challenges to the admissibility of the expert testimony. The fingerprint experts explained in great detail the process by which they reached their opinions, and these opinions were supported by an adequate factual basis. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in admitting this testimony (see generally People v. Cronin, 60 NY2d 430, 434 [1983]).Because we are affirming the trial conviction, there is no basis for disturbing the plea conviction.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5378. PEOPLE, res, v. Yhovanny Peguero, def-ap — Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Heidi Bota of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Alan Gadlin of counsel), for res — An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered October 28, 2015,Said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive,It is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.Counsel for appellant is referred to§606.5, Rules of the AppellateDivision, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5379. PEOPLE, res, v. Stuart Newman, def-ap — Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Joanne Legano Ross of counsel), for ap — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered August 7, 2015, unanimously affirmed.Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v. California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v. Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law §460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order.Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5380N. Yessenia Damas, plf-res, v. William J. Biggs, def-ap — Netherland Gardens Corp., def-res, HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), def — William J. Biggs, appellant pro se. Smith & Nesoff, PLLC, New York (David L. Smith of counsel), for Yessenia Damas, res — Tane, Waterman & Wurtzel, P.C., New York (Andrew D. Stern of counsel), for Netherland Gardens Corp., res — Order and interlocutory judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered on or about August 2, 2016, among other things, appointing a referee to conduct a sale of property and distribute the proceeds, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Given that the parties could not reach a settlement agreement, and physical partition would cause great prejudice to both owners, the motion court correctly directed that the cooperative unit be sold and the proceeds divided (RPAPL 915; see Estate of Steingart v. Hoffman, 33 AD3d 465, 466 [1st Dept 2006]). Shares to a cooperative unit may be partitioned under RPAPL article 9 (Chiang v. Chang, 137 AD2d 371 [1st Dept 1988]). Further, it is undisputed that plaintiff signed the proprietary lease and was a co-owner of shares to the unit; thus, she had a right to seek partition of the unit (see id.; see also RPAPL 901[1]).To the extent defendant co-owner of the unit raises any arguments concerning the proper division of the sales proceeds, such arguments are premature.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5381N. In re Help Me See, Inc., pet-res, v. Wonderwork, Inc. formerly known as Surgery for the Poor, Inc., res-res — - – - - Clark Kokich Non-Party Intervenors Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, New York (Judith M. Wallace of counsel), for ap — Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York (Vincent A. Sama of counsel), res — Kalib & Kalib, New York (Susan B. Kalib of counsel), for non-party Intervenors.—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered December 2, 2016, which granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.The arbitration award was properly confirmed. Contrary to respondent’s contention, the award did not improperly redirect specific charitable donations based on a determination of donor intent. Rather, it awarded expectation damages sufficient to restore petitioner to the position it would have been in had respondent performed as promised under the parties’ agreement (see Emposimato v. CIFC Acquisition Corp., 89 AD3d 418, 421 [1st Dept 2011]). As such, New York’s public policy protecting donor intent was not implicated (see Not-For-Profit Corporation Law §§513[b]; 555[b], [e]; Alco Gravure, Inc. v. Knapp Found., 64 NY2d 458, 467-468 [1985]; Matter of Friends for Long Island’s Heritage, 80 AD3d 223, 230-231, 235 [2d Dept 2010]).Since the damages awarded were compensatory in nature, the award also did not violate New York law holding that arbitrators do not have authority to award punitive damages (see Garrity v. Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 NY2d 354, 356 [1976]), assuming that the arbitration was governed by New York law.Whether or not respondent will be able to pay the award without resort to restricted-purpose funds is irrelevant (see Board of Educ. of Yonkers City School Dist. v. Yonkers Fedn. of Teachers, 46 NY2d 727, 729 [1978]). The award did not designate any particular source from which the damages had to be paid. The issue of what funds may be used may be raised in the bankruptcy court (Matter of Wonderwork, Inc., Index No. 16-13607 [Bankr SD NY]).We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn, Singh, JJ.5382. In re Manuel Asensio, [M-5856]pet, v. Hon. Lawrence J. Marks, etc., res — Manuel P. Asensio, petitioner pro se. John W. McConnell, New York (Lee A. Alderstein of counsel), for res — The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules,Now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.By Acosta, P.J., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kapnick, Kahn, JJ.4859. CB by His Mother and Natural Guardian Lateaqua Suarez Plaintiffs-res-ap, v. Howard Security Defendants-Appellants-res — Carroll, McNulty & Kull LLC, New York (Frank J. Wenick of counsel), for Howard Security, appellant-res — Mauro Lilling Naparty, LLP, Woodbury (Matthew W. Naparty of counsel), for Sammon-Build Center Housing Development Fund Corporation and Tolentine Zeiser Community Life Center, appellants-res — Philip Newman, P.C., Bronx (Paul Bibuld of counsel), for respondents-ap — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered on or about November 29, 2016, modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to grant plaintiffs’ motion for a spoliation charge to the extent of permitting an adverse inference charge at trial for defendants’ failure to produce the log book in question, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.Opinion by Acosta, P.J. All concur.Order filed.SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENTJANUARY 4, 2018THE COURT ANNOUNCESTHE FOLLOWING MOTION ORDERS:By Acosta, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Jr., Renwick, Richter, JJ. M-4919 PEOPLE, Respondent, -against- Daniel Everett, Defendant-Appellant. Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on or about May 14, 2012, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, and of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., 199 Water Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10038, Telephone No. 212-577-3688, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.M-5183. PEOPLE, res, v. Jason Lara, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on or about September 8, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone No. 212-577-2523, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.M-5275 PEOPLE, Appellant, -against- Jason Lara, Defendant-Respondent. Defendant-respondent having moved for leave to respond, as a poor person, to the People’s appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about September 8, 2017, and for assignment of counsel,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of (1) permitting movant to respond to the appeal upon a reproduced respondent’s brief, on condition that one copy of such brief be served upon the attorney for the People and 9 copies thereof are filed with this Court, and (2) assigning, pursuant to Section 722 of the County Law, Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone No. 212-577-2523, as counsel for purposes of responding to the appeal.M-5328. PEOPLE, res, v. Roberto Rodriguez, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on or about September 21, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone No. 212-577-2523, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.M-5329 PEOPLE, Respondent, -against- Clyde Henderson, Defendant-Appellant. Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on or about September 27, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone No. 212-577-2523, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.M-5511. PEOPLE, res, v. Luis Santana, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about October 24, 2016, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone No. 212-577-2523, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.M-5540. PEOPLE, res, v. Jose A. Gross, a/k/a Jose A. Grossseverino, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on or about December 20, 2016, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone No. 212-577-2523, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.M-5625. PEOPLE, res, v. Norman McKenny, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on or about July 28, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, and of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., 199 Water Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10038, Telephone No. 212-577-3688, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.CONFIDENTIAL M-5768. PEOPLE, res, v. Robert Myles, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bruce, J.), entered on or about September 15, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, for an enlargement of time in which to perfect the appeal, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it isOrdered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall expeditiously have made and file with the criminal court (CPL 460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of the SORA hearing and any other proceedings before Justice Bruce as yet not transcribed. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.M-6003. PEOPLE, res, v. Fabian Burns, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on or about April 10, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, and of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Christina Swarns, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Room 1601, New York, New York 10007, Telephone No. 212-402-4112, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.By Hon. Rolando T. Acosta, J.P., David Friedman, John W. Sweeny, Jr., Dianne T. Renwick, Rosalyn H. Richter, JJ.M-6041. PEOPLE, res, v. Christopher Edwards, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on or about September 12, 2016, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone No. 212-577-2523, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.M-6046. PEOPLE, res, v. Wellington Fullmore-Salvador, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on or about October 18, 2016, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone No. 212-577-2523, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.Confidential M-6126. PEOPLE, res, v. Kenneth Johnson, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Hayes, J.), entered on or about November 3, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, for an enlargement of time in which to perfect the appeal, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it isOrdered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall expeditiously have made and file with the criminal court (CPL 460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of the SORA hearing and any other proceedings before Justice Hayes as yet not transcribed. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.Confidential M-6142. PEOPLE, res, v. Juan Soto, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Goldberg, J.), entered on or about October 5, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, for an enlargement of time in which to perfect the appeal, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it isOrdered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall expeditiously have made and file with the criminal court (CPL 460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of the SORA hearing and any other proceedings before Justice Goldberg as yet not transcribed. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.By Acosta, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Jr., Richter, JJ.M-4916. PEOPLE, res, v. Henry Garcia, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about March 29, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, and of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Christina Swarns, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Room 1601, New York, New York 10007, Telephone No. 212-402-4112, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.CONFIDENTIAL M-4921. PEOPLE, res, v. Rashad Givens, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about April 11, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, and of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Christina Swarns, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Room 1601, New York, New York 10007, Telephone No. 212-402-4112, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.M-5542. PEOPLE, res, v. Hiram Ortega, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about December 10, 2015, and the revised judgment dated June 8, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone No. 212-577-2523, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.M-5664 PEOPLE, Respondent, -against- Oneal Watts, Defendant-Appellant. Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from judgments of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about October 6, 2015, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone No. 212-577-2523, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.Confidential M-5987. PEOPLE, res, v. Michael Straker, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barrett, J.), entered on or about September 21, 2016, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, for an enlargement of time in which to perfect the appeal, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it isOrdered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall expeditiously have made and file with the criminal court (CPL 460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of the SORA hearing and any other proceedings before Justice Barrett as yet not transcribed. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.By Acosta, J.P., Sweeny, Jr., Gische, Andrias, Gesmer, JJ.M-2348. Joshua Watson, plf-res, v. The City of New York def-ap — Defendants-appellants having moved for a stay of trial pending hearing and determination of the appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on or about November 26, 2016,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, including the stipulation of the parties dated November 29, 2017 and the interim relief granted by an order of a Justice of this Court dated May 3, 2017, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of continuing the interim relief granted by an order of a Justice of this Court dated May 3, 2017, and pursuant to the stipulation of the parties pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.By Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Tom, Kahn, Kern, JJ.M-5769/M-5916. Lukasz Gottwald, presently known as Dr. Luke plf-res, v. Kesha Rose Sebert, presently known as Kesha def-ap — [And another action.]—An appeal having been taken to this Court from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about November 8, 2017,And defendant-appellant Kesha Rose Sebert, presently known as Kesha, having moved for a stay of enforcement of certain discovery pending hearing and determination of the appeal taken from the order requiring same, (M-5769),And plaintiffs-respondents having cross-moved for an order striking certain specified materials from the record on appeal, (M-5916),Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and cross motion and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion and cross motion are denied, with leave to plaintiffs-respondents to raise the issue upon hearing of the appeal.By Friedman, J.P., Richter, Gische, Andrias, Moulton, JJ.M-4917. PEOPLE, res, v. Henry Garcia, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about March 29, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of deeming the notice of appeal dated April 5, 2017 amended to reflect that the judgment appealed from was rendered March 29, 2017, and permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, and of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Christina Swarns, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Room 1601, New York, New York 10007, Telephone No. 212-402-4112, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.By Friedman, J.P., Richter, Gische, Moulton, JJ.M-4513. PEOPLE, res, v. Amaury Helena, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on or about September 6, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, and of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., 199 Water Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10038, Telephone No. 212-577-3688, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.By Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn, Singh, JJ.M-5904. Daniel Alvarado, Plaintiff, v. Manhattan Oral Facial Surgery, LLC, and Ali Payami, DMD, MD, def — Defendants having moved for an enlargement of time to perfect the appeal taken from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about December 28, 2016,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of enlarging the time to perfect the appeal to the May 2018 Term.M-5905. Lilowtie Ramsamujh and Nohar Bhagwandin, plf-ap, v. Christopher Nieves and Solitaire Auto Services Inc., def-res — Plaintiffs having moved for an enlargement of time to perfect the appeal taken from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on or about October 13, 2016,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of enlarging the time to perfect the appeal to the April 2018 Term.CONFIDENTIAL M-5977. PEOPLE, res, v. William Morales, def-ap — Defendant having moved for an enlargement of time in which to file a notice of appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about September 28, 2017, for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, on the original record and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted only to the extent of deeming the moving papers a timely filed notice of appeal.M-5978. PEOPLE, res, v. Nafton Clarke, def-ap — Defendant having moved for an enlargement of time in which to file a notice of appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about September 27, 2017, for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, on the original record and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted only to the extent of deeming the moving papers a timely filed notice of appeal.M-5980. PEOPLE, res, v. SCI. Nos. 980/17 Pablo Gomez-Martinez, 1583/17 def-ap — Defendant having moved for an enlargement of time in which to file a notice of appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about June 29, 2017,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of deeming the moving papers as a timely filed notice of appeal.M-5981. PEOPLE, res, v. Terrell Adams, def-ap — Defendant having moved for an enlargement of time in which to file a notice of appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about March 6, 2017,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of deeming the moving papers as a timely filed notice of appeal.M-5982. Frank Merendino, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Costco Wholesale Corp., def-res, and E.W. Howell Co., LLC, Defendant-res-ap, and Merendino Corp., def-res — E.W. Howell Co., LLC, Third-Party plf-ap, Third-Party v. Merendino Corp., Third-Party def-res — Costco Wholesale Corporation, Fourth-Party Plaintiff, Fourth-Party v. E.W. Howell Co., LLC and Merendino Corp. Fourth-Party def — Costco Wholesale Corporation, Fifth-Party Plaintiff, Fifth-Party -against- Starr Indemnity and Liability Company and Zurich, NA, Fifth-Party Defendants. Defendant-respondent-appellant/third-party plaintiff- appellant/fourth-party defendant Howell having moved for an enlargement of time to perfect the appeal taken from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about January 27, 2017,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of enlarging the time to perfect the appeal to the June 2018 Term.By Friedman, J.P., Kahn, Gesmer, Kern, Moulton, JJ.M-5657. PEOPLE, res, v. Robert Torres, def-ap — Defendant having moved for an enlargement of time in which to file a notice of appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about October 17, 2016, for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of deeming the moving papers as a timely filed notice of appeal and permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, and of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., 199 Water Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10038, Telephone No. 212-577-3688, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.M-5658. PEOPLE, res, v. Alex Pagan, def-ap — Defendant having moved for an enlargement of time in which to file a notice of appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about November 17, 2016, for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of deeming the moving papers as a timely filed notice of appeal and permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, and of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., 199 Water Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10038, Telephone No. 212-577-3688, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.By Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Kahn, Kern, JJ.M-4287. Veg 83 LLC, plf-res, v. JTED83, Inc., and Ron Braverman, def-ap — An appeal having been taken to this Court from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about May 4, 2016, and said appeal having been perfected,And defendants-appellants having moved for an enlargement of time to perfect the appeal, and for leave to correct certain defects in the previously filed pro se brief and appendix submitted by defendant-appellant Braverman,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of enlarging the time to perfect the appeal to the April 2018 Term. Counsel for plaintiff-appellant is directed to file a supplemental appendix, along with defendants-appellants’ brief, on or before January 29, 2018 for said April 2018 Term. Counsel for defendants-appellants are granted leave to address any additional arguments on behalf of defendant-appellant Braverman in the brief, if so advised.M-6164. Carlos Lopez-Gonzalez, plf-res, v. 1807-1811 Park Avenue Development Corp., ESF Property Inc., and Eastside Floor Services Ltd., def-ap — 1807-1811 Park Avenue Development Corp., ESF Property Inc., and Eastside Floor Services Ltd., Third-Party plf-ap, Third-Party v. Navac Construction Corp., Third-Party def-ap — Navac Construction Corp., Second Third-Party Plaintiff- ap — Second Third-Party v. Lurig Construction Inc., and Calim Ferris, Second Third-Party Defendants- ap — Separate appeals having been taken to this Court from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about August 29, 2016,And third-party defendant/second third-party plaintiff-appellant, Navac Construction Corp., having moved for a stay of trial pending hearing and determination of their appeal,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is denied.By Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern, Oing, JJ.M-5367. PEOPLE, res, v. Kurby Velez, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on or about June 19, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of deeming the moving papers a timely filed notice of appeal, and permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, and of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., 199 Water Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10038, Telephone No. 212-577-3688, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.By Richter, J.P., Tom, Kapnick, Kern, Moulton, JJ.M-5995. Marla Eilenberg, pet-ap, v. The City of New York, New York City Department of Education, Carmen Farina, Chancellor of New York City Department of Education. res-res, To Vacate a Decision of a Hearing Pursuant to CPLR Article 75—Petitioner-Appellant having moved for an enlargement of time to perfect the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about January 20, 2017,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of enlarging the time to perfect the appeal to the April 2018 Term.By Richter, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing, Singh, JJ.M-5353. PEOPLE, res, v. John Nosea, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on or about March 13, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of deeming the moving papers a timely notice of appeal and permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, and of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Christina Swarns, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Room 1601, New York, New York 10007, Telephone No. 212-402-4112, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.By Richter, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing, Singh, JJ.M-5473. PEOPLE, res, v. Wesley Francois, def-ap — Defendant having moved for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal taken from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about February 16, 2017, for leave to have the appeal heard upon the original record and a reproduced appellant’s brief, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of deeming the motion papers a timely filed notice of appeal and permitting the appeal to be heard on the original record, except that a certified copy of the indictment(s) shall be substituted in place of the original indictment(s), and upon a reproduced appellant’s brief, on condition that appellant serves one copy of such brief upon the District Attorney of said county and files 8 copies of such brief, together with the original record, pursuant to Rule 600.11 of the Rules of this Court.The court reporter shall promptly make and file with the criminal court (CPL §460.70) one transcript of the stenographic minutes of any proceedings pursuant to CPL §210.20, Arts. 710 and 730, of the plea or trial and sentence. The Clerk shall furnish a copy of such transcripts to appellant’s counsel, without charge, the transcripts to be returned to this Court when appellant’s brief is filed.Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone No. 212-577-2523, is assigned as counsel for defendant-appellant for purposes of the appeal. The time within which appellant shall perfect this appeal is hereby enlarged until 120 days from the date of filing of the record.By Richter, J.P., Webber, Kern, Moulton, JJ.M-5323. PEOPLE, res, v. Tho Nguyen, def-ap — An order of this Court having been entered on February 14, 2017 (M-6483), granting defendant leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on or about June 9, 2016, and assigning Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., as counsel to prosecute the appeal; and a motion having been made to relieve such counsel, and for related relief,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of striking the designation of assigned counsel Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., as counsel to prosecute defendant’s appeal, and substituting, pursuant to Section 722 of the County Law, Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, New York 10005, Telephone No. 212-577-2523, as such counsel. The poor person relief previously granted is continued, and appellant’s time in which to perfect the appeal is enlarged until 120 days from the date of this order or the filing of the record, whichever is later.By Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Tom, Kapnick, Webber, JJ.M-5910. In Re: Baltic Trading Stockholders Litigation Justin Wilson plf-ap, v. Baltic Trading Ltd. def-res — An appeal having been taken to this Court from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about August 31, 2016 and the judgment, same court and justice, rendered September 16, 2016, respectively, and said appeal having been perfected,And defendants-respondents having moved for leave to supplement the record on appeal,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that the motion is denied.By Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kahn, Kern, JJ.M-3225. PEOPLE, res, v. Juan def-ap — An order of this Court having been entered on January 10, 2017 (M-5007), inter alia, granting defendant’s motion for leave to prosecute, as a poor person, the appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on or about June 16, 2016, under Indictment Nos. 2165/15 and 2344/15, and assigning counsel therefor,And defendant-appellant having moved for an order amending the notice of appeal and the aforementioned order to include the judgment of resentence of said Court rendered on or about September 6, 2016 under Ind. No. 2165/15,Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is ordered that said motion is granted to the extent of deeming the moving papers a timely filed notice of appeal from the judgment of resentence entered on or about September 6, 2016, amending the notice of appeal to reflect the judgment of resentence of said Court under Ind. No. 2165/15, and extending the poor person relief previously granted to cover same.By Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Tom, Kahn, Kern, JJ.M-5796. MATTER of Sara Tracy Kang,an attorney and counselor-at-law:Petitioner disbarred and her name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof. No opinion. All concur.By Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Kapnick, Oing, JJ.M-5578. MATTER of David Segal,a suspended attorney:Motion for reargument is denied. No opinion. All concur.By Friedman, J.P., Kahn, Gesmer, Kern, Moulton, JJ.M-4094. MATTER of Jeffrey A. Leighton,M-5375. an attorney and counselor-at-law:Joint motion for discipline by consent is granted and respondent censured. The Committee’s petition of charges is denied as moot. Opinion Per Curiam. All concur.By Gische, J.P., Andrias, Kern, Oing, Singh, JJ.M-2884. MATTER of Michael Joffe,an attorney and counselor-at-law:Committee’s motion is granted affirming the Referee’s findings of facts and conclusions of law. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for a period of two years, and until further order of this Court. Opinion Per Curiam. All concur.