A & L Village Market, Inc., res, v. 344 Village, Inc. def, Bell-Rex Associates, LLC, ap — Motion by the appellant to consolidate appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 22, 2016, and August 30, 2017, respectively, to deem the record and briefs filed in connection with the appeal from the order entered March 22, 2016, to also be filed in connection with the appeal from the order entered August 30, 2017, and for leave to serve and file a supplemental record containing the order entered August 30, 2017, the notice of appeal from that order, and the papers constituting the record on the appeal from the order entered August 30, 2017, which are not contained in the record filed in connection with the appeal from the order entered March 22, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, and on or before March 15, 2018, the appellant shall serve and file a supplemental record containing the order entered August 30, 2017, the notice of appeal from that order, and the papers constituting the record for the order entered August 30, 2017, which are not contained in the record filed in connection with the appeal from the order entered March 22, 2016, and a supplemental brief which contains points of argument on the appeal from the order entered August 30, 2017.DILLON, J.P., MILLER, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Priscilla Hall, J.P.; Austin, Sgroi and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Timothy S. Lang, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se to enlarge the time to serve and file a supplemental brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, rendered December 1, 2015.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the pro se supplemental brief submitted to the Clerk of the Court is accepted for filing and deemed timely served; and it is further,ORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until March 12, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.HALL, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Maltese and Lasalle, JJ.MATTER of Dashaun Sims, pet, v. Thomas Griffin, etc. res — Motion by the petitioner pro se for leave to prosecute a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which was transferred to this Court by an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated June 13, 2017, as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for leave to prosecute the proceeding on the original papers is granted, and the proceeding will be heard on the original papers (including the transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the parties, who are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to waive payment of the filing fee is denied as unnecessary as no filing fee is payable in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 that was transferred to this Court by an order of the Supreme Court; and it is further,ORDERED that the branches of the motion which are for free transcripts and for the assignment of counsel are denied; and it is further,ORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the petitioner’s time to perfect the proceeding by causing the original papers constituting the record to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]), and by serving and filing a brief is enlarged until March 12, 2018.DILLON, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ.David Lee, ap, v. State of New York, res — (Claim No. 128931) — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims dated April 26, 2017, as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for leave to prosecute the appeal on the original papers is granted, and the appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the parties, who are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other; and it is further,ORDERED that the branches of the motion which are to waive payment of the filing fee, for free transcripts, and for the assignment of counsel are denied; and it is further,ORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal by causing the original papers constituting the record on the appeal to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]), and by serving and filing a brief on the appeal is enlarged until March 12, 2018.BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HINDS-RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Sgroi, Miller and Lasalle, JJ.Russian Orthodox Convent Novo-Diveevo, Inc., ap, v. Maria (Lydia) Sukharevskaya res — Renewed motion by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated January 6, 2015, insofar as taken against the respondent Pelageya Morozova.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn insofar as taken against the respondent Pelageya Morozova.CHAMBERS, J.P., SGROI, MILLER and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Austin, Sgroi and Lasalle, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Ronnie Duren, ap — Motion by the appellant for leave to reargue an application for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated July 15, 2015 (People v. Duren, 130 AD3d 842), determining an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, rendered December 12, 2012, as amended January 16, 2013. The application was determined by decision and order of this Court dated July 26, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Iannacci, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Fredy Portillo, ap — (S.C.I. No. 1664N/16) — Motion by the appellant’s assigned counsel on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, rendered December 9, 2016, to be relieved of the assignment on the ground that the appellant has abandoned the appeal by failing to communicate with assigned counsel. By order to show cause dated October 19, 2017, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had abandoned the appeal, and assigned counsel’s motion was held in abeyance in the interim.Now, upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of assigned counsel’s motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel’s motion is granted.CHAMBERS, J.P., SGROI, HINDS-RADIX and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Priscilla Hall, J.P.; Austin, Sgroi and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Juan Vallecillo, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to prosecute an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 3, 2017, as a poor person, and for the assignment of counsel. By order to show cause dated October 26, 2017, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the order was neither appealable as of right nor by permission, and the appellant’s motion was held in abeyance in the interim.Now, upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the appellant’s motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed (see CPL 450.10, 450.20); and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s motion is denied as academic.HALL, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Austin, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Kenneth Purvis, ap, v. Rodney Veeney res — (Claim No. 125751) — Motion by the appellant, inter alia, to recall and vacate so much of a decision and order on motion of this Court dated August 15, 2017, as dismissed an appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, dated November 20, 2015.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Leventhal, Austin and Christopher, JJ.Christian Melendez, ap, v. 778 Park Avenue Building Corporation res — Motion by the appellant for leave to reargue an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered November 21, 2014, which was determined by decision and order of this Court dated August 16, 2017, or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this Court.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied, with $100 costs.RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Iannacci, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Elvis Taylor, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to file exhibits to his supplemental brief on an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered October 9, 2014.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.CHAMBERS, J.P., SGROI, HINDS-RADIX and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Austin, Connolly and Iannacci, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Juan Picart, ap — Renewed motion by the appellant pro se for leave to serve and file a supplemental brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered November 9, 2016, and to be furnished with copies of the typewritten transcripts of the proceedings, if any.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the District Attorney shall file the transcripts of the proceedings, if any, and the Clerk of this Court shall deliver those transcripts to the person in charge of the institution wherein the appellant is incarcerated for examination by the appellant; the transcripts shall be returned to this Court when the appellant files the supplemental brief or informs this Court that no supplemental brief will be filed; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant shall file nine copies of the supplemental brief and serve one copy on the District Attorney.Upon delivering the transcripts to the institution, the Clerk of this Court shall advise the appellant of the date by which the transcripts are to be returned and the supplemental brief filed.RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Austin, Connolly and Iannacci, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Jerome A. Mack, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to serve and file a supplemental brief on an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered June 1, 2015.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied without prejudice to renew upon proper papers specifying the issues to be raised in the pro se supplemental brief.RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Priscilla Hall, J.P.; Austin, Sgroi and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., plf, v. Johnnytuff Faucett, def — Motion by Johnnytuff Faucett, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to CPL 460.30 for an extension of time to take an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 3, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.HALL, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Maltese and Lasalle, JJ.MATTER of Bolton, res, v. New York City Employees Retirement System ap — Motion by New York City Employees’ Retirement System and City of New York for leave to appeal to this Court from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 8, 2016, and July 6, 2017, respectively.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.DILLON, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Iannacci, JJ.Combined Ventures, LLC, plf, v. Fiske House Apt. Corp., def, Karen v. M. Smith, appellant; 22 Fiske Place, LLC nonparty- res — Motion by the appellant, inter alia, to recall and vacate so much of a decision and order on motion of this Court, entitled “MATTER of the Dismissal of Causes for Failure to Perfect,” dated September 19, 2016, as dismissed an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 22, 2014, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(e) for failure to timely perfect, to reinstate the appeal, and to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.CHAMBERS, J.P., SGROI, HINDS-RADIX and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Maltese and Lasalle, JJ.Saphyre Redford, a/k/a Crystal Biton, ap, v. Wilmer Hill Grier, res — (Appellate Division Docket No. 2008-926KC; Civil Court Index No. 119128/07) — Motion by Saphyre Redford, a/k/a Crystal Biton, inter alia, for leave to appeal to this Court from an order of the Appellate Term, Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, dated October 2, 2017, which denied her motions for leave to appeal to this Court from a decision and order on motion of the Appellate Term, which denied her motion for leave to reargue an appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered May 30, 2008.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation and in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.DILLON, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Maltese and Lasalle, JJ.Mark Lew, res, v. Gail Sobel ap — Motion by the respondent, inter alia, to recall and vacate an order on application of this Court dated October 26, 2017, which granted the appellants’ application pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered February 21, 2017. Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that the application is denied without prejudice to making a motion for the relief sought.DILLON, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Maltese and Lasalle, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Yerix Alfaro, ap — Motion by the respondent to dismiss, for failure to prosecute, appeals from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County, both rendered January 8, 2013, which were deemed abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(f). Application by the appellant, in effect, to restore the appeals to active status and to enlarge the time to perfect the appeals.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeals is enlarged, and the appellant’s counsel shall prosecute the appeals expeditiously in accordance with this Court’s rules (see 22 NYCRR 670.1, et seq.) and written directions.DILLON, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Lasalle, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Jeremy Vonarnold, ap — Motion by the respondent to dismiss, for failure to prosecute, an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered March 7, 2006, which was deemed abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(f).Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.BALKIN, J.P., LASALLE, HINDS-RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Austin, Connolly and Iannacci, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Joann Benison, ap — Motion by the respondent to dismiss, for failure to prosecute, an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered January 10, 2012.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Maltese and Lasalle, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Robert L. Baker, ap — Motion by the respondent to dismiss, for failure to prosecute, an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered January 8, 2015.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.DILLON, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Austin, Connolly and Iannacci, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Franklin Bonilla, ap — Motion by the respondent to dismiss, for failure to prosecute, an appeal, by permission, from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated May 6, 2013.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Lasalle, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Nicole Auclair-Masone, ap — Motion by the respondent to dismiss, for failure to prosecute, an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered March 28, 2014, which was deemed abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(f).Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.BALKIN, J.P., LASALLE, HINDS-RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Austin, Connolly and Iannacci, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Craig Borsetti, ap — Motion by the respondent to dismiss, for failure to prosecute, an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered September 26, 2014.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Balkin, J.P.; Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Bruce S. Aponte, ap — Motion by the respondent to dismiss, for failure to prosecute, an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County, rendered January 20, 2015.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HINDS-RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.By Priscilla Hall, J.P.; Austin, Sgroi and Christopher JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Elvin Brogsdale, ap — Motion by the respondent to dismiss, for failure to prosecute, an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 23, 2009, which was deemed abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(f).Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.HALL, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Miller, Barros and Connolly, JJ.Steven Seidler ap, v. Jacob Knopf, etc. def, Ashburton 70, LLC res — Motion by the respondents for leave to renew and reargue an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 6, 2015, which was determined by decision and order of this Court dated August 23, 2017, for an award of costs, and to impose a sanction upon the appellants.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied, with $100 costs.CHAMBERS, J.P., MILLER, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Pedro Pena, res, v. Rosa Tiburcio, ap — Appeal by Rosa Tiburcio from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated May 6, 2016. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the time for the respondent to serve and file a brief on the appeal is enlarged until February 5, 2018; and it is furtherORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.MATTER of Kym v. Marc, res, v. Dabir A. Duvert, ap — Appeal by Dabir A. Duvert from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County, dated July 18, 2017. By dated November 13, 2017, the appellant was directed to file one of the following in the office of the Clerk of the Court, within 30 days after the date of the :(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there were no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeal; or(2) if there were such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript was received, and indicating the date that it was received; or(3) if the transcript was not received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it was ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript was expected; or(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal.The appellant has failed to comply with the . Pursuant to §670.4(a)(5) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][5]), it isORDERED that the parties are directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled proceedings for failure to comply with the dated November 13, 2017, by each filing an affirmation or affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this Court and serving one copy of the same on each other on or before January 30, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, or her designee, is directed to serve a copy of this order to show cause upon the parties by regular mail.MATTER of Margaret ONeill, ap, v. William K. McLoughlin, res — Appeal by Margaret O’Neill from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County, dated April 10, 2017. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 13, 2017, the appellant was directed to file one of the following in the office of the Clerk of the Court, within 30 days after the date of the order:(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there were no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeal; or(2) if there were such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript was received, and indicating the date that it was received; or(3) if the transcript was not received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it was ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript was expected; or(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal.The appellant has failed to comply with the decision and order on motion dated November 13, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(5) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a][5]), it isORDERED that the parties are directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding for failure to comply with the decision and order on motion dated November 13, 2017, by each filing an affirmation or affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this Court and serving one copy of the same on each other on or before January 30, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court, or her designee, is directed to serve a copy of this order to show cause upon the parties by regular mail.MATTER of Sabrina Defreitas, ap, v. Marc Merolus, res — O-13984/15) — Appeal by Sabrina Defreitas from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated November 13, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it isORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceedings shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this Court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, if there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this ; and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this , the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this Court one of the following:(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeal; or(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or(4) if the appellant is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeal, a motion in this Court for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101. Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit from the appellant, stating either that he or she qualified for assigned counsel upon application to the Family Court and that his or her financial status has not changed since that time, or that he or she had retained counsel or appeared pro se in the Family Court, and listing his or her assets and income; or(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,ORDERED that if none of the actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above has been taken within 30 days of the date of this , the Clerk of this Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.MATTER of Roberta Lebowitz, res, v. Howard R. Lebowitz, ap — Appeal by Howard R. Lebowitz from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated November 8, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it isORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this Court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, if there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this ; and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this , the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this Court one of the following:(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeal; or(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or(4) if the appellant is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeal, a motion in this Court for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101. Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit from the appellant, stating either that he or she qualified for assigned counsel upon application to the Family Court and that his or her financial status has not changed since that time, or that he or she had retained counsel or appeared pro se in the Family Court, and listing his or her assets and income; or(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,ORDERED that if none of the actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above has been taken within 30 days of the date of this , the Clerk of this Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.MATTER of Glory C. Espinal, res, v. Dwayne A. Burton, ap — Appeal by Dwayne A. Burton from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated November 20, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it isORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceeding shall be perfected within 60 days after the receipt by the appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the appellant shall notify this Court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, if there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this ; and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this , the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this Court one of the following:(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeal; or(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or(4) if the appellant is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeal, a motion in this Court for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101. Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit from the appellant, stating either that he or she qualified for assigned counsel upon application to the Family Court and that his or her financial status has not changed since that time, or that he or she had retained counsel or appeared pro se in the Family Court, and listing his or her assets and income; or(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,ORDERED that if none of the actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above has been taken within 30 days of the date of this , the Clerk of this Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.MATTER of Quinton Carr, appellant-res, v. Armani Thomas, res-res — Appeal by Quinton Carr and cross appeal by Armani Thomas from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated November 30, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), it isORDERED that Quinton Carr shall perfect the appeal in the above-entitled proceedings within 60 days after the receipt of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and shall notify this Court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, if there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this ; and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this , Quinton Carr shall file in the office of the Clerk of this Court one of the following:(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of the Family Court proceedings to be transcribed for the appeal and cross appeal; or(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or(4) if he is indigent and cannot afford to obtain the minutes or perfect the appeal, a motion in this Court for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel, pursuant to the requirements of CPLR 1101. Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit from Quinton Carr, stating either that he qualified for assigned counsel upon application to the Family Court and that his financial status has not changed since that time, or that he had retained counsel or appeared pro se in the Family Court, and listing his assets and income; or(5) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,ORDERED that if none of the actions described in (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) above has been taken within 30 days of the date of this , the Clerk of this Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal and cross appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.MATTER of Cashmere T. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner- res, Andrew S. (Anonymous), respondent- ap — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Kashane R. S. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner- res, Andrew S. (Anonymous), respondent- ap — (Proceeding No. 2)MATTER of Keyona R. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner- res, Andrew S. (Anonymous), respondent- ap — (Proceeding No. 3)MATTER of Kashawn A. S. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner- res, Andrew S. (Anonymous), respondent- ap — (Proceeding No. 4) N-23402-15, N-23403-15) — Appeals by Andrew S. from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, dated April 17, 2017, and May 30, 2017, respectively. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the time for the respondent and the attorney for the children to serve and file their respective briefs on the appeals is enlarged until February 9, 2018.Michelle Levitin, res, v. Joshua Levitin, ap — Appeal by Joshua Levitin from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered September 20, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal by causing the original papers constituting the record on the appeal to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]) and by serving and filing the appellant’s brief on the appeal is enlarged until February 23, 2018.MATTER of Franklin U. (Anonymous), ap — Appeal by Franklin U. from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated June 19, 2017. The appellant’s brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court on January 3, 2018. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order, the brief for the respondent in the above-entitled appeal shall be served and filed.MATTER of Denise v. E. J. (Anonymous), ap — Westchester Department of Social Services, petitioner- res, Latonia J. (Anonymous), respondent- res, John A. Pappalardo, nonparty-res — (and another title). N-7121-05/14L, N-7124-05/14L, N-11424-14/14B) — Appeals by Denise V. E. J. from two orders of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated March 27, 2017, and August 21, 2017, respectively. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the time for the respondent Westchester Department of Social Services to serve and file a brief on the appeals is enlarged until February 16, 2018.MATTER of Michael Burrell, Sr., respondent v. Heather West Burrell, ap — V-8085-08/16Q, V-8086-08/16M) — Appeals by Heather West Burrell from two orders of the Family Court, Suffolk County, both dated February 2, 2017. Pursuant to §670.4(a)(2) of the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.4[a][2]), it isORDERED that the time for the attorney for the children to serve and file a brief on the appeals is enlarged until February 13, 2018.MATTER of Quinton Carr, appellant- res, v. Armani Thomas, respondent- ap — Appeal by Quinton Carr and cross appeal by Armani Thomas from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated November 30, 2017. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Helen Pundurs Bua, Esq., dated December 18, 2017, it isORDERED that Armani Thomas is granted leave to proceed as a poor person on the appeal and cross appeal, and the following named attorney is assigned as counsel for Armani Thomas:Richard J. Cardinale, Esq.26 Court Street, Suite 1815Brooklyn, NY 11242718-624-9391and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel shall promptly attempt to contact Armani Thomas at the address provided by the Court, and on or before January 23, 2018, shall notify the Case Manager assigned to the appeal, in writing, that he has done so and that either(1) Armani Thomas is interested in prosecuting the cross appeal and/or responding to the appeal, or(2) Armani Thomas is not interested in prosecuting the cross appeal and/or responding to the appeal, or that he has been unable to contact Armani Thomas, and wishes to be relieved of the assignment; and it is further,ORDERED that the appeal and cross appeal will be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the parties. The parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other (22 NYCRR 670.9[d][1][ii]; Family Ct Act §1116); and it is further,ORDERED that the stenographer(s) and/or the transcription service(s) is/are required promptly to make and certify two transcripts of the proceedings, if any, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (22 NYCRR 671.9); in the case of stenographers, both transcripts shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court, and the clerk of the Family Court shall furnish one of such certified transcripts to the Armani Thomas’s assigned counsel, without charge; in the case of transcription services, one transcript shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court and one transcript shall be delivered to the assigned counsel. Assigned counsel is directed to provide copies of said transcripts to all of the other parties to the appeal, including the attorney for the child, if any, when counsel serves a brief upon those parties; and it is further,ORDERED that the assigned counsel shall prosecute the cross appeal expeditiously in accordance with any or orders issued pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]); and it is further,ORDERED that upon a determination that Armani Thomas is interested in proceeding with the cross appeal, the assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the clerk of the Family Court, Queens County.Ayana Johnson Jones, res, v. Khalid Malih appellants def — Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 90-day enlargement of time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 12, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the appellants’ time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until February 27, 2018, the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Frank Andolina, ap — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until February 5, 2018, to serve and file a brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered March 2, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until January 19, 2018, the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.Jake Lewis, ap, v. KMT Group, Inc., res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 30-day enlargement of time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 22, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until January 29, 2018, the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.Ronald Frankel, res, v. 59 Sands Point, LLC ap — Application by the appellant Hudson City Savings Bank pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until February 9, 2018, to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 4, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the applicant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until February 2, 2018, the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.Ruslan Tukshaitov, ap, v. Young Mens and Womens Hebrew Association, defendant third-party plf-res, Sierra Consulting Group, Inc., defendant-res, Precision Elevator Corp., third-party def-res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until January 31, 2018, to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 30, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until January 25, 2018, the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.Ditmid Holdings, LLC, res, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, etc., ap — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 30-day enlargement of time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 26, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until January 25, 2018, the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.B.J., etc. ap, v. Board of Education of the City of New York, et al., res — Application by the respondents pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 30-day enlargement of time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 3, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the respondents’ time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until January 19, 2018, the respondents’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, etc., ap, v. Alice Sesay, res, et al., def — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until February 23, 2018, to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 17, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until January 22, 2018, the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.Joseph Cardinale, etc. plf-res, v. Selina Nyahmal def-res, Wellcare Health Plans, Inc., etc., ap — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until February 1, 2018, to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated March 20, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until January 22, 2018, the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.Taron Partners, LLC, plf-res, v. Suzanne v. McCormick, appellant; C2GRE, LLC nonparty-res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 20-day enlargement of time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 13, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until January 19, 2018, the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.MATTER of Applications for Extensions of Time — Parties in the following causes have filed applications pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to extend the time to perfect or to serve and file a brief.Upon the papers filed in support of the applications, it isORDERED that the applications are granted and the following parties in the following causes are granted the specified extensions of time:Title Docket No. Applicant Name(s) Extended Deadline126 Henry Street, Inc. v Cater, 2017-07757, 126 Henry Street, Inc., February 1, 2018Ain v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2017-04188, Ingrid Ain Martin, J. Ain, January 12, 2018Apladendaki v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 2017-05134, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, February 1, 2018Bohner v. Bohner, 2016-11669+1, Ellen Bohner, January 18, 2018Boriello v. Loconte, 2017-02449+1, Dorine Boriello, January 17, 2018Brannigan v. Christie Overhead DoorNationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2017-07884, Amato Coverage Group, Inc., March 6, 2018Cames v. Craig, 2017-09953, Randolph Craig, January 22, 2018Constantino v. City of New York, 2017-02217, City of New York, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, February 1, 2018Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Moshe, 2017-07519, Assaf Moshe, Galit Levi, February 26, 2018Federal National Mortgage Association v. Landau, 2017-07861+1, Joseph Landau, February 28, 2018Gleitman v. Zorbas, 2017-08384, Bridget Zorbas January 19, 2018Gorokhova v. Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc., 2017-08133, Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc., Joseph D. Blasi, January 25, 2018HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Branker, 2017-00586, Vista Holding, LLC, January 16, 2018Jones v. City of New York2017-05025City of New YorkJanuary 26, 2018Karaseva v. EAN Holdings LLC, 2017-05714, Sharon F. Labuda, Brian J. Labuda, January 22, 2018Kim & Bae, P.C. v Sunki Lee, 2017-05144, Kim & Bae, P.C., Christine Bae, Bong June Kim, January 25, 2018Matter of Ocean Aviation Incorporated v. County of Suffolk, 2017-07345, Ocean Aviation, Incorporated, February 26, 2018Nationstar v. Farrel, 2017-04391, Duce Realty, Inc., January 25, 2018People v. Burgos, Jose, 2015-0549, 6People of State of New York, January 22, 2018People v. Moran, Yohani P., 2015-03630, Yohani P. Moran, January 22, 2018People v. Phipps, Danny, 2015-09949, People of State of New York, January 26, 2018Qudsi v. Larios, 2017-07693, Dunia Qudsi Wisam Awwad, January 26, 2018U.S. Bank National Association v. Aorta, 2017-02121, Noam Aorta, January 16, 2018By Austin, J.PEOPLE, etc., plf, v. Troy Wright, def — Application by the defendant pursuant to CPL 450.15 and 460.15 for a certificate granting leave to appeal to this Court from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated September 25, 2017, which has been referred to me for determination.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the application is denied.By Leventhal, J.P.; Austin, Miller and Duffy, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Delesley Dessasau, ap — On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 5, 2018, in the above-entitled appeal is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order on motion is substituted therefor:Motion by the appellant on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered August 14, 2017, to extend a stay of execution of said judgment, which was granted by the Supreme Court, Queens County, on that date, pending determination of the appeal to this Court.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, and the stay of execution of the judgment granted by the Supreme Court, Queens County, on August 14, 2017, is extended pending hearing and determination of the appeal, on condition that the appeal is perfected by March 19, 2018, and on the same conditions as set by the Supreme Court, Queens County; and it is further,ORDERED that this stay shall terminate and be of no further effect, and the appellant shall thereafter surrender to serve the sentence imposed, unless the appeal is perfected on or before March 19, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that upon the termination of this stay as provided above, this order shall constitute authorization to any peace officer to arrest and deliver the appellant to the sentencing court to begin the execution of sentence.LEVENTHAL, J.P., AUSTIN, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.
