Motion List released on: December 7, 2017

By Mastro, J.P.; Chambers, Austin and Duffy, JJ.MATTER of Edward Wydra res, v. Mendel Brach appellants; Marcy Towers, LLC intervenors-res — Separate applications by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 23, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the applications and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the applications are granted, the appellants’ time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 2, 2018, and the joint record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants’ respective briefs shall be served and filed on or before that date.Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, ap, v. Frederick O. Murray respondents def — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve the record on appeal and the appellant’s brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 24, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to serve the record and the appellant’s brief is enlarged until December 28, 2017, and the appellant shall serve the record on appeal and the appellant’s brief and file proof of service with this Court on or before that date.By Mastro, J.P.; Chambers, Austin and Duffy, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Dillon Ortiz, ap — 2017-06805The People, etc., plaintiff,v Dillon Ortiz, defendant.(Ind. No. 15-00107)‌Motion by Dillon Ortiz to consolidate appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, rendered April 14, 2016, and an order of the same court dated May 23, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied as academic in light of the decision and order on application of this Court dated November 20, 2017, which denied Dillon Ortiz’s application for leave to appeal to this Court from the order dated May 23, 2017.MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ.U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, on behalf of the Home Equity Asset Trust 2005-7 Home Equity Pass through Certificates, Series 2005-7, res, v. Joell C. Barnett, appellant def — Motion by the respondent for leave to reargue an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 5, 2014, which was determined by decision and order of this Court dated June 7, 2017.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.MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Leventhal, Hall and Duffy, JJ.Louis Cukierwar, res, v. College Central Network, Inc., ap — Motion by the appellant for leave to reargue an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 27, 2015, which was determined by decision and order of this Court dated March 22, 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, HALL and DUFFY, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Leventhal, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.PEOPLE, res, v. Dwayne Webb, a/k/a Latif Lamar, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to serve and file a supplemental brief on an appeal from an order of the County Court, Rockland County, dated March 14, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.DILLON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Priscilla Hall, J.P.; Cohen, Barros and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Michael Murray, ap — Motion by counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 6, 2015, in effect, to be relieved of the assignment on the ground that the appellant has abandoned the appeal by failing to respond to communications by assigned counsel. By order to show cause dated September 5, 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.HALL, J.P., COHEN, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Roman, J.P.; Maltese, Lasalle and Barros, JJ.Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., res, v. Maria Trupia, ap — Motion by the appellant to recall and vacate a decision and order on motion of this Court dated September 8, 2017, which dismissed an appeal from an unsigned transcript of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated July 12, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is it isORDERED that the motion is denied.ROMAN, J.P., MALTESE, LASALLE and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Cohen, Miller and Barros, JJ.PEOPLE, res, v. Gary Council, ap — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the record on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 1, 2016, to include the transcript of proceedings which occurred on February 13, 2013, in an action entitled People v. Council, commenced in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Indictment No. 443/12.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 stenographer of the trial court is directed promptly to make, certify, and file two transcripts of the proceedings which occurred on February 13, 2013, in the action entitled People v. Council, commenced in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Indictment No. 443/12, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (see 22 NYCRR 671.9); and it is further,ORDERED that the clerk of the trial court shall furnish one certified transcript of the proceedings to the appellant’s assigned counsel, Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street – 5th Floor, New York, New York 10038, without charge (see CPLR 1102[b]); assigned counsel is directed to turn over the transcript to the respondent when counsel serves the appellant’s brief on the respondent; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged; assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with this Court’s rules (see 22 NYCRR 670.1, et seq.) and written directions; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order on motion upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.RIVERA, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, plf, v. John Juliano, etc. def, Peter Dinicola, a/k/a Peter De Nicola, a/k/a Peter M. Denicola res — Separate applications by the respondents pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time until January 24, 2018, to serve and file their respective briefs on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 19, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the applications and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application by the respondent People’s United Bank, successor in interest to Bank of Smithtown, is granted to the extent that the time to serve and file its brief is enlarged until January 8, 2018, the applicant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is furtherORDERED that the application by the respondent Peter Dinicola, a/k/a Peter De Nicola, a/k/a Peter M. Denicola is denied as academic, as his brief has been timely served and filed.Khalil Noghreh, res, v. Equinox Great Neck, Inc. ap — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 22, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until January 18, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.Moshe Simpson appellants-res, v. 1147 Dean, LLC respondents-ap — Application by the respondents-appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until February 16, 2018, to serve and file a brief on an appeal and a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 23, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the respondents-appellants’ time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until January 16, 2018, the respondents-appellants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.US Bank National Association, as trustee for Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., CSAB Mortgage-Backed Trust 2006-2, res, v. Shakuntala Majid ap, Arcade Capital Corporation etc. def — Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 5, 2016, and March 13, 2017, respectively.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellants’ time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until January 3, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeals and the appellants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.By Rivera, J.P.; Cohen, Miller and Barros, JJ.MATTER of Jasmine Cherry, ap, v. Thomas A. Lsekenegbe res — Motion by the appellant pro se, inter alia, for leave to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 15, 2017, as a poor person.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 motion is otherwise denied.RIVERA, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Cohen, Miller and Barros, JJ.MATTER of Adrian Lopez, ap, v. Tina Stanford, etc., res — Motion by the appellant for leave to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated July 21, 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.RIVERA, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.James B. Nutter and Company, ap, v. Lori A. Mongioi res, et al., def — Application by the respondents pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 60-day enlargement of time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated February 27, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the respondents’ time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until January 2, 2018, the respondents’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.Laurence S. Magnano, ap, v. Anthony Dimisa res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated May 1, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 8, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.Ji Hae Kim ap, v. Lili Quintanilla, res — Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated April 7, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellants’ time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 8, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.Judith Bandler, ap, v. Brian Bandler, res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 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, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 31, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.John P. Pedranghelu, Jr., as administrator of the estate of John P. Pedranghelu, ap, v. Edward H. Oruci res, et al., def — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 31, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 5, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.Adrianna Tedeschi, a minor under the age of 18 years by her father and natural guardian, Salvatore Tedeschi ap, v. The State of New York, res — (Claim No. 127980) — Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, dated April 19, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellants’ time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until February 13, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.Joseph Barton, plf-res, v. The City of New York ap, Walter Rossler, def-res, et al., def — Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 29, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellants’ time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 5, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee successor in interest to Bank of America, National Association, as trustee as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank, National Association, as trustee for WAMU mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-AR13 trust, ap, v. John Coleman, a/k/a John H. Coleman, a/k/a John H. Coleman, Jr., res, et al., def — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 31, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 19, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.Rosalee Jones, res, v. New York City Housing Authority, ap — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 13, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 30, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.Eusebio Calero, ap, v. Statewide Storage Systems, Inc., res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 27, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 16, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.Sukhwinder Singh, res, v. Irene Gottesman, third-party plaintiff- res-ap, Adena Samowitz, third-party plaintiff-appellant-res, Fairmont Capital, LLC, res, A-1 Harry Construction Corp., doing business as A-1 Construction Corp., third-party def-res — Application pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal and a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 8, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant-respondent’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 8, 2018, and the joint record or appendix on the appeal and cross appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][1]) and the appellant-respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that the respondent-appellant shall serve and file the answering brief, including the points of argument on the cross appeal, in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]).Ye Wu, res, v. Xiao Qing Li, ap — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 90-day enlargement of time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 23, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until January 8, 2018, the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.Joanne Anselmo, ap, v. The Estate of Ingeborg Christy, by Timothy Christy, as executor, res — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until January 22, 2018, to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 16, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until January 5, 2018, the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.MATTER of Kalman Max, deceased. Jonathan Max, petitioner-appellant; J. Philip Max, res-res — (File No. 345070) — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 120-day enlargement of time to perfect an appeal from a decision of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, dated February 7, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr. Co., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,ORDERED that the application is denied as academic.Sovereign Bank, successor by merger to Independence Community Bank, successor by merger to Si Bank & Trust, ap, v. Jeffrey Broome respondents def — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 28, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 8, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.By Austin, J.P.; Roman, Sgroi and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Donald Alleyne, ap, v. Deuel Ally res — Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 4, 2016, as untimely taken.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 dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see CPLR 5513[a]).AUSTIN, J.P., ROMAN, SGROI and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.MATTER of Tracy Cotich, ap, v. The Town of Newburgh res — Motion by the respondents to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated January 11, 2017, for failure to timely perfect.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, without costs or disbursements (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]).DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.Prahalad Singh, ap, v. Hazel Booker, res — Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 8, 2017, for failure to timely perfect.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, without costs or disbursements (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]).DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Leventhal, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Citimortgage, Inc., res, v. Donald Dimiceli, ap, et al., def — Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 18, 2016, for failure to timely perfect.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, without costs or disbursements (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]).DILLON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Leventhal, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Status General Development, Inc., ap, v. 501 Broadway Partners, LLC, res — Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 22, 2016, for failure to timely perfect.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, without costs or disbursements (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]).DILLON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.LNV Corp, res, v. Agnetta Sofer, appellant def — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 28, 2017, and a judgment of the same court also dated April 28, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 3, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.MATTER of Hannah Zarzar, pet, v. NYS Office of Children and Family Services, et al., res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a six-month enlargement of time to perfect a proceeding transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 4, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the petitioner’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 3, 2018, and the record or appendix and the petitioner’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.MATTER of Foreclosure of Tax Liens Pursuant to Chapter 783 and Article 1, Title 3 of the Real Property Tax Law by the City of Mount Vernon, New York, ap, v. Valerie v. Leary, res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 31, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 11, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.MATTER of Sean McCarthy, ap, v. Timothy Sini, in his official capacity as Police Commissioner, res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 29, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 15, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.Frank Meak plf-res, v. Properties Pursuit, Inc., ap, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance def-res, et al., def, John Franco, nonparty- res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 14, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 8, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.MATTER of Nella Manko, ap, v. Lenox Hill Hospital, res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 3, 2016, and a judgment of the same court entered April 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, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeals is enlarged until January 16, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeals and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.Stephanie M. Saladino, ap, v. Segundo K. Quinteros, res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated May 8, 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 denied as unnecessary, as the appeal was timely perfected.David Waknin res, v. Liberty Insurance Corporation ap — Application by the respondents pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 60-day enlargement of time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 16, 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 9, 2018, the respondents’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.Francis P. Duggan, res, v. Kevin P. Michel, appellant def — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for an enlargement of time until January 17, 2018, to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 10, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until January 11, 2018, the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.The Board of Managers of Olive Park Condominium, on its own behalf and on behalf of individual unit owners, plf, v. Maspeth Properties, LLC defendants-appellants def, TSG Engineering, P.C., defendant-respondent (and a third-party action). — Application by the defendants-appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 27, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the defendants-appellants’ time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 16, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the defendants-appellants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.Elizabeth Kasavana, ap, v. Christine Vela, res — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 31, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until January 12, 2018, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.MATTER of DCH Auto, as tenant obligated to pay taxes ap, v. The Town of Mamaroneck, a municipal corporation res — Application by the respondents Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Mamaroneck, Assessor of the Village of Mamaroneck, and The Village of Mamaroneck, a municipal corporation, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 10, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the applicants’ time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until January 12, 2018, and the applicants’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.MATTER of Glenda Bermudez, res, v. City of New York, ap — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 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, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until February 7, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.By Eng, P.J.; Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.Lubov Andriienko, ap, v. Compass Group USA, Inc. res — Motion by the appellant to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 27, 2017, and to disregard a discrepancy between the spelling of the appellant’s first name in the order appealed from and the spelling of the appellant’s first name on the covers of the proposed record and appellant’s brief.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to enlarge the time to perfect the appeal is granted, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 8, 2018, and the record or appendix on the appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to disregard any discrepancy in the spelling of the appellant’s first name is granted to the extent that the spelling of the appellant’s first name on the covers of the record and appellant’s brief shall conform to the spelling in the complaint in this action.ENG, P.J., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Eng, P.J.; Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.LaSalle Bank National Association, etc., ap, v. Carlyle Ebanks, res, et al., def — Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 3, 2012, as untimely taken.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies as of right from an order that is not the result of a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701), and leave to appeal has not been granted.ENG, P.J., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Sgroi, Cohen and Barros, JJ.RSA Catering, LLC, res, v. Scott Schneider ap — 2017-10467RSA Catering, LLC, respondent, v. ScottSchneider, appellant defendants.(Index No. 600707/17)‌Motion by Scott Schneider for an award of counsel fees from RSA Catering, LLC, on appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 12, 2017, and September 20, 2017, respectively, and to consolidate the appeals.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the parties are directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the cross appeal from the order entered September 20, 2017, taken on behalf of the defendants by Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara Wolf & Carone, LLP, in the above-entitled action on the ground that Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara Wolf & Carone, LLP, did not have authority to file a notice of appeal on the defendants’ behalf (see CPLR 321), 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 December 28, 2017, or, if RSA Catering, LLC, be so advised, to make a motion to correct the notice of cross appeal to reflect that it is the proper cross appellant (see Matter of Tagliaferri, 1 NY3d 605; CPLR 2001), on or before December 28, 2017; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for an award of counsel fees is denied without prejudice to seeking relief in the Supreme Court, Nassau County; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to consolidate the appeals is denied as unnecessary as the appeals may be consolidated as of right (see 22 NYCRR 670.7[c][1]); 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.DILLON, J.P., SGROI, COHEN and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Duffy, JJ.David Mussenden, ap, v. Rapid Processing, LLC res — Motion by the respondent Rapid Processing, LLC, inter alia, to strike stated portions of the appellant’s appendix and brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 4, 2017, on the ground that it contains or refers to matter dehors the record. Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the application, and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to strike pages A-9 through A-13 and statement of facts paragraph 3 on pages 5 through 6 of the appellant’s appendix and brief is granted, and those portions of the appellant’s appendix and brief are stricken, and on or before December 29, 2017, the appellant shall remove the stricken material from the copies of the appellant’s appendix and brief filed with the Clerk of this Court or serve and file a replacement appellant’s appendix and brief which does not contain or refer to the stricken material, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,ORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until January 12, 2018, and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.By Eng, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.  MATTER of Kenneth H. Woodson, res, v. Ivellisse Woodson, ap — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Ivellisse Woodson, ap, v. Kenneth H. Woodson, res — (Proceeding No. 2) V-7859-10, V-21735-08/10C, V-21736-08/10C, V-21735-08/09B, V-21736-08/09B) — Appeals by Ivellisse Woodson from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, both dated December 13, 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 appeals is enlarged until January 5, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.Douglas Johnstone ap, v. Chaim Babad res, et al., def — Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated June 2, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellants’ time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until December 15, 2017, and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.By of The State of New York, Second Judicial Department, Eng, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Jennifer K. Ward, res, v. Steven A. Saporito, ap — Appeal by Steven A. Saporito from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated January 13, 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 child to serve and file a brief on the appeal is enlarged until December 15, 2017; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA and DILLON, BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Eng, P.J.; Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, res, v. Mohammad Jalil, appellant def — Motion by the respondent to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered September 15, 2016. Application by the appellant to withdraw the appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the application, and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is denied as academic.ENG, P.J., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Chambers, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Duffy, JJ.Grace Akpan, ap, v. Kanika Sharma, res — Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 1, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]).CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.By Eng, P.J.; Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.Verizon New York, Inc., etc., plf, v. Supervisor of Town of North Hempstead, et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-res, County of Nassau third-party defendants- ap — 2016-00512Keyspan Gas East Corporation, etc., plaintiff-respondent, v. Supervisor of Town of NorthHempstead defendants third-partyplaintiffs-respondents; County of Nassau,et al., third-party defendants-appellants.(Index No. 8194/10)‌2016-10588Keyspan Gas East Corporation, doing businessas Keyspan Energy Delivery, plaintiff, v. Supervisorof Town of North Hempstead defendantsthird-party plaintiffs-respondents; County of Nassau,et al., third-party defendants-appellants.(Index No. 7269/02)‌Motion by the third-party defendants-appellants to calendar together appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered June 25, 2015, a judgment of the same court entered September 29, 2015, and a judgment of the same court entered August 29, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeals will be calendared together and will be argued or submitted on the same date.ENG, P.J., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Eng, P.J.; Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.Milton Thomas, etc., ap, v. The State of New York, etc., res — (Claim No. 128510) — Motion by the appellant for leave to prosecute an appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, dated February 9, 2017, as a poor person.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 and for free transcripts are denied.ENG, P.J., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Eng, P.J.; Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.Marie T. Bazile, plf, v. Lev Goldstein, def — Motion by the defendant “to update the judgment.” By decision and order on motion dated March 21, 2016, this Court denied the defendant’s prior motion for leave to appeal to this Court from an order of the Appellate Term, Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, dated November 30, 2015, which determined an appeal and a cross appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered January 23, 2014.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.ENG, P.J., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Austin, Sgroi and Barros, JJ.Continental Casulaty Company, ap, v. Westchester County Health Care Corporation, etc. res — Motion by the respondents to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered September 15, 2016, for failure to timely perfect. Application by the appellant to withdraw the appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the application, and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is denied.DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.PEOPLE, etc., plf, v. Alex Viader, 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, Kings County, dated Jul 3, 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 Dillon, J.PEOPLE, etc., plf, v. Ernesto Lopez, 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, Kings County, dated April 24, 2017, which has been referred to me for determination.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the application is denied.By Chambers, J.P.; Roman, Miller and Duffy, JJ.Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc., plf-res, v. Tina M. Cristiano Lorusso ap, Bank of America, NA, def-res — Motion by the plaintiff-respondent to dismiss appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered August 26, 2016, and an order of the same court dated July 19, 2016, for failure to timely perfect.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 appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]).CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.PEOPLE, etc., plf, v. Frank Pruitt, def — Application by the defendant pursuant to CPL 450.15 and 460.15 for a certificate granting leave to appeal to this Court from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 31, 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 Dillon, J.P.; Leventhal, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Kiana Martinez, an infant by her mother and natural guardian, Cheila Martinez res, v. Kreative Kare Day Care Center, Inc., doing business as Kreative Kare Too ap — Motion by the respondents to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 23, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied as academic in light of the decision and order on application of this Court dated November 13, 2017, which deemed the appeal withdrawn.DILLON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and Iannacci, JJ.MATTER of Bishop Frank Best, ap, v. Melvina Grace, res — V-208061-15, V-208062-15) — Motion by the appellant pro se on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated March 30, 2017, in effect, for leave to reargue his prior motion, inter alia, for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, which was determined by decision and order on motion of this Court dated October 10, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion, in effect, for leave to reargue is granted, the decision and order on motion of this Court dated October 10, 2017, is recalled and vacated, upon reargument, the branch of the prior motion which was for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person is granted, and the prior motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,ORDERED that the appeal will be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the briefs of the appellant, the respondent, and the attorney for the children, if any. The parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other (22 NYCRR 670.9[d][1][ii]; Family Ct Act §1116); and it is further,ORDERED that the stenographer(s) and/or the transcription service(s) is/are required promptly to make and certify two transcripts of the proceedings, if any, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (22 NYCRR 671.9); in the case of stenographers, both transcripts shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court, and the clerk of the Family Court shall furnish one of such certified transcripts to the appellant, 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 appellant. The appellant is directed to provide copies of said transcripts to all of the other parties to the appeal, including the attorney for the children, if any, when the appellant serves a brief upon those parties; and it is further,ORDERED that the the appellant shall prosecute the appeal expeditiously in accordance with any   or orders issued pursuant to 670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]); and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order on motion upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), 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 decision and order on motion; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), within 30 days after the date of this decision and order on motion, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this Court one of the following:(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes 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 this decision and order on motion has been served upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,ORDERED that if none of the actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above has been taken within 30 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, the Clerk of the Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.DILLON, J.P., SGROI, HINDS-RADIX and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Austin, J.P.; Roman, Sgroi and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Lamar Samuel, ap — Motion by counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 28, 2016, in effect, to be relieved on the ground that the appellant has abandoned the appeal by failing to respond to communications by assigned counsel.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant is directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant has abandoned the appeal, by filing an affirmation or an affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this Court on or before January 9, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion by assigned counsel to be relieved is held in abeyance in the interim; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court or her designee is directed to serve a copy of this order to show cause upon the appellant at his last known place of residence or, if he is imprisoned, at the institution in which he is confined, and upon the attorney who last appeared for him, and upon the District Attorney, by ordinary mail pursuant to CPL 470.60(2).AUSTIN, J.P., ROMAN, SGROI and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Devon Billinghurst, ap — Motion by counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 1, 2012, in effect, to be relieved of the assignment on the ground that the appellant has abandoned the appeal by failing to respond to communications by assigned counsel. By order to show cause dated October 3, 2017, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had abandoned the appeal, and assigned counsel’s motion was held in abeyance in the interim.Now, upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of assigned counsel’s motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel’s motion is granted.DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.Joann Pickles, res, v. Hyde Park Central School District, ap — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a three-week enlargement of time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated April 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 December 19, 2017, the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.By Mastro, J.P.; Hall, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Malik Francis, ap — Motion by counsel assigned to prosecute an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 8, 2015, in effect, to be relieved of the assignment on the ground that the appellant has abandoned the appeal by failing to respond to communications by assigned counsel. By order to show cause dated September 27, 2017, the appellant was directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant had abandoned the appeal, and assigned counsel’s motion was held in abeyance in the interim.Now, upon the order to show cause and no papers having been filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of assigned counsel’s motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel’s motion is granted.MASTRO, J.P., HALL, SGROI and DUFFY, JJ., concur.By Eng, P.J.; Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Joel Urena-Salcedo, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se pursuant to CPL 460.30 for an extension of time to take appeals from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, both rendered September 26, 2016, and a resentence of the same court imposed December 21, 2016, for leave to prosecute the appeals as a poor person, and for the assignment of counsel.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s moving papers are deemed to constitute a timely notice of appeal; and it is further,ORDERED that the appeals will be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings, if any) and on the appellant’s and the respondent’s briefs; the parties are directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other; and it is further,ORDERED that the stenographer of the trial court is directed promptly to make, certify, and file two transcripts of the proceedings of any pretrial hearings, of the plea of guilty or of the trial, and of the imposition of sentences and resentence in these actions, except for those minutes previously transcribed and certified (see 22 NYCRR 671.9); and it is further,ORDERED that in the event that the case was tried to a conclusion before a jury, the stenographer shall also make, certify, and file two transcripts of the minutes of proceedings during jury selection; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of the trial court shall furnish one certified transcript of each of the proceedings set forth above to the appellant’s counsel, without charge (see CPL 460.70); assigned counsel is directed to turn over those transcripts to the respondent when counsel serves the appellant’s brief on the respondent; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the stenographer has already prepared a copy of any of the minutes for a codefendant, then the Clerk of the trial court is directed to reproduce a copy thereof for assigned counsel; and it is further,ORDERED that, upon service of a copy of this decision and order on motion upon it, the Department of Probation is hereby authorized and directed to provide assigned counsel with a copy of the presentence report prepared in connection with the defendant’s sentencing and resentencing, including the recommendation sheet and any prior reports on the defendant which are incorporated in or referred to in the report, and to provide additional copies to this Court upon demand; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event an issue as to the legality, propriety, or excessiveness of the sentence or resentence is raised on the appeals, or if assigned counsel cites or relies upon the probation report in a brief or motion in any other way, counsel shall provide a complete copy of such report and any attachments to this Court and the District Attorney’s office prior to the filing of such brief or motion; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to County Law §722 the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeals:Richard M. Langone, Esq.600 Old Country Road – Suite 328Garden City, NY 11530516-795-2424and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s time to perfect the appeals is enlarged; assigned counsel shall prosecute the appeals expeditiously in accordance with this Court’s rules (see 22 NYCRR 670.1, et seq.) and written directions; and it is further,ORDERED that in the event the file has been sealed, it is hereby unsealed for the limited purpose of allowing assigned counsel or his or her representative access to the record for the purpose of preparing the appeals; such access shall include permission to copy the papers insofar as they pertain to the appellant; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order on motion upon the clerk of the court from which the appeals are taken.ENG, P.J., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Eng, P.J.MATTER of Leah Fruchthandler, res, v. Ephraim Fruchthandler, ap — Appeals by Ephraim Fruchthandler from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County, dated July 21, 2017, and July 24, 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 appellant’s time to perfect the appeals by causing the original papers constituting the record on the appeals to be filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.9[d][2]) and by serving and filing the appellant’s brief on the appeals is enlarged until January 16, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Eng, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Diana Lopez, res, v. Christopher L. Ceravino, et al., ap — Appeal by Christopher L. Ceravino, Michael Dorney, and Daria Dorney from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated August 31, 2017.On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the appeal is transferred to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts (see 22 NYCRR 730.1[d]), and it is further,ORDERED that all further proceedings in connection with the appeal shall be conducted pursuant to the rules of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts.ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON, BALKIN , JJ., concur.By Eng, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Krishna K. Snowden, res, v. Curtis D. Snowden, ap — Appeal by Curtis D. Snowden from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated March 24, 2017. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 27, 2017,following named attorney is assigned as the attorney for the child on the appeal:Darla A. Filiberto, Esq.1770 Motor Parkway, Suite 300Hauppauge, New York 11788631-232-1130On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the attorney for the child is relieved for the assignment and is directed to turn over all papers in the action to the new attorney for the child herein assigned; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to Family Court Act §1120, the following named attorney is assigned as attorney for the child to represent the child:Jordan Freundlich, Esq.3000 Marcus Avenue, suite 1E9Lake Success, NY 11042516-437-4385ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hall, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Kelly Grandinette, res, v. Anthony Grandinette, ap — Motion by the appellant to stay enforcement of so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 27, 2017, as directed him to pay the outstanding balance of the subject student loans, directed him to reimburse the children for the money they paid to reduce the balances of the subject student loans, and directed him to pay the sum of $5,000 in counsel fees, pending hearing and determination of an appeal from the order.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HALL, HINDS-RADIX and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Equity Recovery Corp., res, v. Joseph Sprei ap — 2017-11724Equity Recovery Corp., respondent,v Joseph Sprei, defendant, Miriam Aber,appellant.(Index No. 514422/15)‌Motion by the appellant Miriam Aber to stay enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 21, 2017, and a judgment of the same court dated October 16, 2017, pending hearing and determination of appeals therefrom. Application pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect the appeals from the order.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 granted, and the time to perfect the appeals from the order is enlarged until February 5, 2018.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.James McGeown, res, v. Marjorie Salvador, ap — Motion by the appellant, inter alia, to stay the partititon sale of the subject premises, pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated June 20, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.MATTER of Kevin C. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-appellant; Xuehau C. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Chongxia C. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-appellant; Xuehau C. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 2) — Motion by the petitioner-appellant to stay enforcement of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 9, 2017, and, in effect, to continue the remand of the care and custody of the subject child Kevin C. to it, pending hearing and determination of an appeal from the order.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition and in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Slavina Gardella, res, v. Emil Remizov, ap — Motion by Emil Remizov for leave to appeal to this Court from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 19, 2017, and to stay the trial in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of the appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for leave to appeal is denied as unnecessary as the order dated September 19, 2017, is appealable as of right (see, CPLR 5701); and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.MATTER of Kevin C. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner- appellant; Xuehau C. (Anonymous), respondent- res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Chongxia C. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner- appellant; Xuehau C. (Anonymous), respondent- res — (Proceeding No. 2) — Appeal by Administration for Children’s Services from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 9, 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 petitioner-appellant of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the petitioner-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 petitioner-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 stating that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date that it was received; or(3) if the transcript has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that it has been ordered and paid for, the date thereof and the date by which the transcript is expected; or(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,ORDERED that if none of the actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above has been taken within 30 days of the date of this  , the Clerk of the Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.Shirin Hamdamova, res, v. New Dawn Transit LLC ap — Application by the appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 5, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellants’ time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until December 15, 2017, and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.By Eng, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Arthur Edey, res, v. Episcopal Health Services, Inc. ap — Application to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 13, 2016.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated November 20, 2017, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.NBTY, Inc., appellant v. Kimberly v. OConnell Vigliante res — Application to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated November 24, 2015.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated December 1, 2017, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.MATTER of Frank Golio, ap, v. Joseph Picone res — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, dated June 5, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Eng, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Marjam Supply Co., Inc., ap, v. New York Professional Drywall Corp., def, Yitzchok Wagschal, res — Application by the appellant for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated December 2, 2008.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.Milton Diaz, ap, v. Mitchell Rosen res — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 15, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.Qedis Corp., doing business as Three Brothers Pizza, ap, v. 3 Brothers Pizza Caf, Inc. res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 25, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until December 18, 2017, and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.Bank of New York Mellon, formerly known as Bank of New York, as trustee for Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Series, 2006-S2, plf-res, v. Arif Izmirligh, appellant def, Mark D. Cohen nonparty-res — Application by the appellant to withdraw appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated November 14, 2016 and November 18, 2016, respectively.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeals are marked withdrawn.Arif S. Izmirligil, ap, v. Steven J. Baum, P.C. def-res, Thomas F. Whelan nonparty-res — Application by the appellant to withdraw appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated November 2, 2016, a decision of the same court dated August 24, 2016, and an order of the same court dated November 18, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeals are marked withdrawn.OCWEN, res, v. Godfrey Garnett, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 19, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Chambers, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Maltese and Iannacci, JJ.Marina Soloveychik, res, v. Sea Isle Owners, Inc., ap — Motion by the appellant to stay the trial in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 6, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.CHAMBERS, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, MALTESE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.E &A Restoration, Inc., res, v. City of Long Beach, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 25, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Eng, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Zinaida Belaya, res, v. Coney Island Site 1824 Houses, Inc., et al., ap — Application by the appellants for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 7, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.U.S. Bank NA, successor trustee to Bank of America, NA, successor in interest to LaSalle Bank, NA, as trustee, on behalf of the Holders of the Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, WMALT Series 2006-1, res, v. George Balis, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 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 and the appeal is marked withdrawn.Jose Ramirez Chavez, res-ap, v. Poliba Nawrocki appellants- res, Gonzalez Landscaping & Design, LLC, def-res, Gary Barnett defendants fourth-party plaintiffs-res, Jesus Gonzalez, fourth-party def-res — Application by the appellant-respondent on an appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 5, 2017, to withdraw the appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Balkin, J.P.; Leventhal, Chambers and Miller, JJ.MATTER of AR Medical Rehabilitation, P.C., pet-ap, v. American Transit Insurance Co., res-res — Application to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 9, 2016.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated December 4, 2017, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, CHAMBERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.Jondo Topuria, ap, v. Ane, LLC, defendant third-party plf-res, Dal H. Chun Engineer, P.C. def, MVP Mechanical Systems, Inc., def-res, Lawrence Glass, Inc. third-party defendants- res — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 1, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.Richard LaRosa claimants-ap, v. The State of New York defendants- res — (Claim No. 123938) — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, dated February 16, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Eng, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Wilson Sanchez, res, v. Renu Contracting & Restoration, Inc., appellant def — Application to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 19, 2016.Upon the stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties to the appeal dated November 17, 2017, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.Mone Mustafaj, ap, v. Rosario Macri res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester 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, the appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until December 15, 2017, and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.By Chambers, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Maltese and Iannacci, JJ.Josefina Rojas, res, v. 1000 42nd Street, LLC, ap — Motion by the appellant to stay the trial in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 17, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted and the trial in the above-entitled action is stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal.CHAMBERS, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, MALTESE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.Judy Canterino, as administratrix of the estate of Michael Canterino, res-ap, v. Kalapatapu Kumar, etc. appellants- respondents def — Application by the respondent-appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and filed a reply brief on an appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 9, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the respondent-appellant’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until December 21, 2017, and the reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.By Leventhal, J.P.; Hinds-Radix, Lasalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.Carlos Villada, appellant-res, v. IDB Group, Property & Building Corp., def, 452 Fifth Owners, LLC respondents-appellants res — Motion by the appellant-respondent to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal and cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 1, 2016. Cross motion by the respondent-appellant 452 Fifth Owners, LLC, to stay the trial in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of the appeal and cross appeals.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the cross motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is granted, the appellant-respondent’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until January 9, 2018, and the joint record or appendix on the appeal and cross appeals (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][1]) and the appellant-respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that the respondents-appellants shall serve and file their respective answering briefs, including the points of argument on the cross appeals, in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]); and it is further,ORDERED that the cross motion is denied.LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.Rena Berger res-ap, v. Katherine Joy Shen, etc. appellants- respondents def — Application by the appellants-respondents and separate application by the respondents-appellants pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 60-day enlargement of time to perfect an appeal and cross appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered March 6, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the applications and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the applications are granted to the extent that the appellants-respondents’ time to perfect the appeal is enlarged until December 20, 2017, and the joint record or appendix on the appeal and cross appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][1]) and the appellants-respondents’ brief shall be served and filed on or before that date; and it is further,ORDERED that the respondents-appellants shall serve and file the answering brief, including the points of argument on the cross appeal, in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]); and it is further,ORDERED that the applications are otherwise denied.Toni Candea, res-ap, v. Robert E. Candea, Jr., appellant-res — Application by the appellant-respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a reply brief on an appeal and a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated March 24, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the appellant-respondent’s time to serve and file a reply brief is enlarged until December 19, 2017, and the appellant-respondent’s reply brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.Ping E. Guo, appellant-res, v. New Fei Long Market, Inc., respondent- appellant def — Application by the respondent-appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 4, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the respondent-appellant’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until December 20, 2017, and the respondent-appellant’s brief, including the points of argument on the cross appeal (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c][3]), shall be served and filed on or before that date.By Eng, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Ewa Meczkowska, ap, v. Robert Pozniewski, res — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 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 on the Court’s own motion, the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies as of right from an order that is not the result of a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701), and leave to appeal has not been granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the application is denied as academic.ENG, P.J., CHAMBERS, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Eng, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Eric Cherry, appellant-res, v. The City of New York, et al, def, C. Velez, etc., res-res — Application by C. Velez on an appeal and a cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 19, 2017, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect the cross appeal.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to timely perfect in accordance with the rules of this Court (see 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]); and it is further,ORDERED that the application is granted, C. Velez’s time to perfect his appeal is enlarged until February 5, 2018, and the record or appendix and C. Velez’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, ap, v. Peter D. Shivers, a/k/a Peter Shivers, respondent def — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 20, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted, the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until December 22, 2017, and the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date.MATTER of J. P., as father natural guardian of A. P., res, v. Plainedge Union Free School District ap — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 60-day enlargement of time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered February 15, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until December 18, 2017, the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.MATTER of Joseph Striplin, pet, v. Thomas Griffin, Supt. G.H.C.F., res — Application by the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) for a 30-day enlargement of time to serve and file a brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated June 12, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted to the extent that the respondent’s time to serve and file a brief is enlarged until December 21, 2017, the respondent’s brief shall be served and filed on or before that date, and the application is otherwise denied.By Balkin, J.P.; Hall, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ.MATTER of Lakrista Q. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-res, Samantha Q. (Anonymous), res-res — On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 6, 2017, in the above-entitled matter is recalled and vacated, and the following decision and order on motion is substituted therefor:Motion by the appellant for leave to prosecute an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Orange Queens County, dated December 15, 2011, as a poor person.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition and in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied with leave to renew on or before January 5, 2018, upon proper papers setting forth the amount and source of fees paid to retained counsel; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), within 30 days after the date of this decision and order on motion, the appellant shall file in the office of the Clerk of this Court one of the following:(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes 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 this decision and order on motion has been served upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken, 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, as set forth above, for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel; 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 decision and order on motion, the Clerk of the Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.BALKIN, J.P., HALL, HINDS-RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.