Appellate DivisionSecond DepartmentHand Down List decided on:August 24, 2018By Scheinkman, P.J.; Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.MATTER of Mike Yacubich, ap, v. Suffolk County Board of Elections res — (Index No. 4248/18)In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to Election Law §16-102, inter alia, to validate a petition designating the petitioner/plaintiff as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2018, for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly, Second Assembly District, and action for declaratory relief, the petitioner/plaintiff appeals from an amended final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (John J. Leo, J.), dated August 20, 2018. The amended final order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, denied that branch of the petition/complaint which was to validate the designating petition.ORDERED that the amended final order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the petition/complaint which was to validate the designating petition is granted.The petitioner/plaintiff, Mike Yacubich, filed a designating petition with the Suffolk County Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board) for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly, Second Assembly District. The Board sustained an objection to the designating petition and invalidated it because there is a “Michael B. Yacubich” and a “Michael V. Yacubich” registered to vote at the candidate’s listed address and the Board could not determine which voter was the “Mike Yacubich” seeking to be placed on the ballot.Yacubich commenced this hybrid proceeding, inter alia, to validate his designating petition, and action for declaratory relief. At a hearing, Yacubich testified that his full name is Michael Brian Yacubich, but he is known as “Mike” Yacubich. His son, Michael Vincent Yacubich, who is 25 years old, was still registered to vote at Yacubich’s home address, but had not lived at the residence since May 2016 and currently resided in California with his fianc. Yacubich also offered the testimony of several witnesses who carried his petition, knew him as “Mike,” and were not confused as to the identity of the person seeking public office. Witnesses testified that they were present with Yacubich while he was collecting signatures. Two subscribing witnesses testified that they had campaign fliers with them as signatures were collected and used them to identify the candidate to potential petition signers. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the petition/complaint which was to validate the designating petition. Yacubich appeals, and we reverse.The Board exceeded its authority when it invalidated the designating petition on the ground that it could not identify which registered voter was the candidate. As amplified by the testimony of one of the Commissioners, the Board perceived that the similarity between the two names was confusing. ”[B]oards of election have no power to deal with questions of fact or with objections involving matters not appearing upon the face of the petition, and… such extrinsic matters, if any, are to be determined in court proceedings only” (Schwartz v. Heffernan, 304 NY 474, 480). ”[T]he board’s power to determine the validity of a [designating or] nominating petition extends only to ministerial examination and the board may not go behind a petition designating candidates for primary election” (id. at 480 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Candidates are permitted to run for office using a familiar name or nickname (see Matter of Gumbs v. Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 143 AD2d 235, 235). Similar to objections raising allegations of fraud (see Matter of Scaturro v. Maloney, 76 AD3d 688, 689-690; Matter of Feustel v. Garfinkle, 29 AD3d 831, 831-832), the issue of whether a candidate’s name is confusing because it is similar to another voter’s name involves a matter extrinsic to the designating petition itself and, thus, is a matter for judicial consideration and not for the Board of Elections. Accordingly, the Board lacked the authority to rule on the objection based upon its perception that the petition was confusing because of the candidate’s name, which should have been raised through a judicial proceeding to invalidate.In any event, there was no proof that Yacubich intended to confuse voters, or that any voters were confused as to his identity (see Matter of Abinanti v. Duffy, 120 AD3d 668, affg Matter of Abinanti v. Duffy, Sup Ct, Westchester County, Aug. 1, 2014, Connolly, J., index No. 2769/14; see also Matter of Reagon v. LeJeune, 307 AD2d 1015; Matter of Petersen v. Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 218 AD2d 776; Matter of Harfmann v. Sachs, 138 AD2d 551, 551).Accordingly, the branch of the petition/complaint which was to validate the designating petition is granted.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.
Motion List released on:August 24, 2018By Lasalle, J.P.; Connolly, Iannacci and Christopher, JJ.Benjamin Landa, res, v. Capital One Bank (USA) NA, ap — Motion by the appellant, in effect, to withdraw certain portions of its brief reffering to an affidavit of Sanjay Mukhi dated September 9, 2016, on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 8, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.LASALLE, J.P., CONNOLLY, IANNACCI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Leventhal, Miller and Connolly, JJ.MATTER of Jasir M. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Myaisha E. (Anonymous), res-ap, Jason James M. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Jason M. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Myaisha E. (Anonymous), res-ap, Jason James M. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 2)MATTER of Jayla E. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Myaisha E. (Anonymous), res-ap, Jason James M. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 3) N-22513-15) — Appeal by Myaisha E. from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated August 9, 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 petitioner-respondent to serve and file a brief on the appeal is enlarged until September 20, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Rivera, Dillon, Balkin and Chambers, JJ.MATTER of Gregory A. J. (Anonymous). Little Flower Childrens Services, petitioner- res, Gregory J. (Anonymous), respondent- ap — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Alexis R. J. (Anonymous). Little Flower Childrens Services, petitioner- res, Gregory J. (Anonymous), respondent- ap — (Proceeding No. 2) — Appeals by Gregory A. J. from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, both dated May 31, 2018. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Vladimir Cadet, dated May 10, 2018, it isORDERED that pursuant to Family Court Act §1120, the following named attorney is assigned as the attorney for the children on the appeal:Richard L. Herzfeld112 Madison Avenue, 8th FloorNew York, N.Y. 10016212-818-9019and it is further,ORDERED that Vladimir Cadet is directed to turn over all papers in the proceeding to the new attorney for the children herein assigned.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RIVERA, DILLON, BALKIN and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Balkin, Sgroi and Lasalle, JJ.Susan Sarigiannidis, res, v. George Sarigiannidis, ap — Application by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 670.8(d)(2) to enlarge the time to perfect an appeal from a decision and order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 10, 2018.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 grounds that no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr. Co., 100 AD2d 509) and that no appeal lies as of right from an order that does not result from a motion on notice and leave to appeal has not been granted (see CPLR 5701); and it is further,ORDERED that the application is denied as academic.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., BALKIN, SGROI and LASALLE, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.MATTER of Altana D. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-res, Ezena L. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 1) the Matter of Michel L. O. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, petitioner-res, Ezena L. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 2) — Appeal by Ezena L. from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated May 8, 2018. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Glenn Gucciardo, dated August 20, 2018, it isORDERED that the respondent-appellant is granted leave to proceed as a poor person on the appeal and the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:Glenn Gucciardo256 Main Street, Suite 206Northport, NY 11768631-262-6911ORDERED 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 respondent-appellant, the petitioner-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 respondent-appellant’s assigned counsel, without charge; in the case of transcription services, one transcript shall be filed with the clerk of the Family Court and one transcript shall be delivered to the respondent-appellant’s 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 children, if any, when counsel serves the respondent-appellant’s brief upon those parties; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel shall serve a copy of this order upon the Clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken; and it is further,ORDERED that the appeal in the above-entitled proceedings shall be perfected either within 60 days after the receipt by the assigned counsel of the transcripts of the minutes of the proceedings in the Family Court, and the assigned counsel shall notify this Court by letter of the date the transcripts are received, or, if there are no minutes of proceedings to be transcribed, within 60 days of the date of this order; and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this order, the assigned counsel shall file in the office of the Clerk of this Court one of the following:(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of any Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation stating that the transcripts have been received, and indicating the date received; or(3) if the transcripts have not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that this order has been served upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken, the date thereof, and the date by which the transcripts are expected; or(4) an affidavit or an affirmation withdrawing the appeal; and it is further,ORDERED that if none of the above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this , the Clerk of this Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Xochitl Roa, ap, v. Peter Marte, res — V-3830-17/17C) — Appeal by Xochitl Roa from an order of the Family Court, Orange County, dated March 20, 2018. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Kristy L. Horaz, dated May 10, 2018, it isORDERED that pursuant to Family Court Act §1120, the following named attorney is assigned as the attorney for the child on the appeal:Geoffrey E. Chanin152 Main StreetGoshen, NY 10924845-291-7077and it is further,ORDERED that Kristy L. Horaz is directed to turn over all papers in the proceeding to the new attorney for the child herein assigned.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.MATTER of Nicole Haims, appellant-res, v. John Lehmann, res-res — Appeal by Nicole Haims, and cross appeal by John Lehmann, from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated December 18, 2017. The appellant-respondent’s brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court on May 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 attorney for the child shall be served and filed.MATTER of Emanuel Ferreira, ap, v. Goddess Santiago, res — Appeals by Emanuel Ferreira from an order and an amended order of the Family Court, Rockland County, dated November 3, 2017 and January 31, 2018, 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 to serve and file a brief on the appeals is enlarged until September 20, 2018.MATTER of Kwana Newton, petitioner- res, v. Christopher McFarlane, respondent-res, Kaishawna M. (Anonymous), nonparty-ap — Appeal by Kaishawna M. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated December 21, 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 petitioner-respondent to serve and file a brief on the appeal is enlarged until September 10, 2018.MATTER of Zahir W. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Ebony W. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Julius C. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Ebony W. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 2) — Appeal by Ebony W. from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated February 20, 2018. 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 petitioner-respondent to serve and file a brief on the appeal is enlarged until October 15, 2018.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Jean Jumeau Estime, ap, v. Marie Suze Civil, res — Appeal by Jean Jumeau Estime from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated February 28, 2018. Pursuant to §670.9(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 September 17, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that no further enlargement of time shall be granted.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Mastro, J.P.; Leventhal, Miller, Hinds-Radix and Iannacci, JJ.Ilya Milin, ap, v. Vladimir Pak res — 2018-08694Ilya Milin, appellant,v Vladimir Pak respondents.(Index No. 521763/17) Motion by the appellant to stay the respondents from selling, gifting, encumbering, or otherwise transferring their ownership interest in the subject premises and to reinstate the notice of pendency, pending hearing and determination of appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 5, 2018, and June 22, 2018, respectively, to consolidate the appeals, for an expedited briefing schedule, and for a preference in the calendaring of the appeals.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 a stay is granted to the extent that the distribution of the net proceeds of any sale of the subject premises, after payment of customary closing costs, is stayed and the net proceeds of any sale of the subject premises shall be held in escrow by the sellers’ attorney, pending hearing and determination of the appeals; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied.MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MILLER, HINDS-RADIX and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.MATTER of Jalaysia S. (Anonymous). Westchester Department of Social Services, petitioner-res, Joshua S. (Anonymous), res-res — Appeal by Joshua S. from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated November 1, 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 September 17, 2018.By Dillon, J.P.; Cohen, Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.MATTER of Julian Swartz, pet, v. Lamb & Barnosky, LLP res — Motion by Julian Swartz for leave to appeal to this Court from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated May 16, 2018.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied as unnecessary as the order and judgment dated May 16, 2018, is appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701, 7806), without prejudice to filing a timely notice of appeal (see CPLR 5514[a]).DILLON, J.P., COHEN, DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.MATTER of Marcia Lewis-Daniel, res, v. Lennox A. Daniel, ap — V-7036-13/17H, V-7035-13/17H) — Appeal by Lennox A. Daniel from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated December 21, 2017. Pursuant to §670.9(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 September 21, 2018.By Hinds-Radix, J.PEOPLE, etc., plf, v. Eric Dancy, 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 March 23, 2018, 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.MATTER of Kamryn C. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Pedro M. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Josiah B. M. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner-res, Pedro M. (Anonymous), res-res — (Proceeding No. 2) — Appeal by Pedro M. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated April 9, 2018. The appellant’s brief was filed in the office of the Clerk of this Court on August 21, 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 , the briefs for the respondent and the attorney for the children in the above-entitled appeal shall be served and filed.By Hinds-Radix, J.PEOPLE, etc., plf, v. Arron Adderly, 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 June 7, 2018, 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 Lasalle, J.PEOPLE, etc., plf, v. Deonicio Genao, 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 June 27, 2018, 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.MATTER of Logan R. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner- res, Manuel R. (Anonymous), respondent- ap — (Proceeding No. 1)MATTER of Adam E. R. (Anonymous). Administration for Childrens Services, petitioner- res, Manuel R. (Anonymous), respondent- ap — (Proceeding No. 2) — Appeals by Manuel R. from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, dated July 11, 2017, and January 22, 2018, 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 petitioner-respondent to serve and file a brief on the appeals is enlarged until September 24, 2018.By Dillon, J.P.; Cohen, Duffy, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.Quality Health Management, Inc., plf, v. Healthfirst PHSP, Inc. def — Motion by Healthfirst PHSP, Inc., Healthfirst Health Plan, Inc., and Healthfirst Insurance Company, Inc., for leave to appeal to this Court from an order to show cause of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 31, 2018, and to stay enforcement of a temporary restraining order contained in the order to show cause, 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; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied as academic.DILLON, J.P., COHEN, DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Brathwaite Nelson, J.PEOPLE, etc., plf, v. David Jamison, 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, datedJuly 10, 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.; Austin, Sgroi and Barros, JJ.Onewest Bank, FSB, res, v. Everette Weaver, ap, et al., def — 2016-05524Onewest Bank, FSB, respondent,v Everette Weaver, appellant,et al., defendants.(Index No. 83/14) Onewest Bank, FSB, respondent,v Everette Weaver, appellant,et al., defendants.(Index No. 83/14) CIT Bank, N.A., respondent,v Everette Weaver, appellant,et al., defendants.(Index No. 83/14) Motion by the appellant on appeals from three orders of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated December 7, 2015, April 8, 2016, and April 27, 2016, respectively, and a judgment of the same court dated January 12, 2017, for leave to reargue certain motions which were determined by decisions and orders on motion of this Court dated April 3, 2018, or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decisions and orders on motion of this Court dated April 3, 2018. Cross motion by the respondent, inter alia, to dismiss the appeals for failure to comply with the decisions and orders on motion of this Court dated April 3, 2018.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the cross motion, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the cross motion which is to dismiss the appeals is granted and the appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,ORDERED that the cross motion is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,ORDERED the respondent’s prior motions to dismiss the appeals from the orders on the ground that the right of direct appeal terminated upon entry of the judgment, which were held in abeyance by decisions and orders on motion of this Court dated June 26, 2017, are denied as academic.DILLON, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.By Brathwaite Nelson, J.PEOPLE, etc., plf, v. Leo Tapia, 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 May 19, 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 Brathwaite Nelson, J.PEOPLE, etc., plf, v. Bravlio Acevedo, 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 November 28, 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 Mastro, J.P.; Leventhal, Miller, Hinds-Radix and Iannacci, JJ.Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc., res, v. Angelo Bancic, appellant def — Motion by the appellant to stay the foreclosure sale of the subject premises, pending hearing and determination of appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 3, 2018, and an order of the same court also entered April 3, 2018.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motion is denied.MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MILLER, HINDS-RADIX and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.By Dillon, J.P.; Cohen, Connolly and Christopher, JJ.Chester Green Estates, LLC, ap, v. Arlington Chester, LLC respondents (and a third-party action). — Motion by the respondents, inter alia, for leave to reargue an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated March 31, 2015, which was determined by decision and order of this Court dated May 23, 2018. Separate motion by nonparty Greens at Chester LLC, inter alia, for leave to intervene or appear as amicus curiae.Upon the papers filed in support of the motions and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that the motions are denied, with $100 costs payable by the respondents to the appellant.DILLON, J.P., COHEN, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.Refka Saleeb, res, v. White Plains Galleria, L.P., ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 30, 2018.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.Susan Mangano, ap, v. Addison W. Augustin, res — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 17, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.Juan Carlos Dilone Espinal, res, v. City of New York ap — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 24, 2018.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.Dawnette Hunter res, v. Thoi Dac Nguyen, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 16, 2018.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.Talaat Hanna, plf-res, v. Gioacchino Milazzo defendants- res, Francesca Milazzo, etc., def, Eagle Aluminum Windows, Inc., ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 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 and the appeal is marked withdrawn.Michael Regis ap, v. Maccarone Plumbing, Inc. res — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 21, 2018.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.Steven Kramer, res, v. Laura J. Piluso, et al., ap — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated October 2, 2017.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.HSBC Bank USA, N.A., res, v. Jacob Glauber, appellant def — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 31, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.HSBC Bank USA, N.A., res, v. Jacob Glauber, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens 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 and the appeal is marked withdrawn.Gerard Shugrue, appellant-res, v. Carmel Shugrue, res-res — Application by the appellant-respondent on an appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 30, 2018, 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.Gerard Shugrue, ap, v. Carmel Shugrue, res — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 10, 2018.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.K&S Sanitation res, v. National Waste Services, LLC, ap — Application by the appellant to withdraw appeals from an order and an amended order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated April 21, 2017 and October 12, 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 and the appeals are marked withdrawn.MATTER of Wesley LeJuan Harris, ap, v. Royisha Schnell Knowles Bryant, res — Application by the appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated November 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 the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.Shamel Crawford, res, v. North Flats LLC, et al., defendants third-party plf-ap, et al., defendant; NBE Plumbing Corp., third-party def-ap — Application by the defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 3, 2016.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal by the defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants is deemed withdrawn, without costs or disbursements.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.William McCabe, etc. res, v. Town of Hempstead ap — Application by the appellants to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 2, 2018.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.Bank of America, NA, etc., plf, v. Raymond Craven defendants; Ernest Treglia, nonparty-ap, Green Tree Servicing LLC, nonparty-res — Application by the nonparty-appellant to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 17, 2018.Upon the papers filed in support of the application and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the application is granted and the appeal is marked withdrawn.By Scheinkman, P.C., Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Julia M. Murray, res, v. Anderson Fils-Aime, ap — On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that the order on certification of this Court dated August 15, 2018 and the decision and order on motion of this Court dated August 30, 2018, in the above-entitled case is recalled and vacated, and the following order on certification is substituted therefor:Appeal by Anderson Fils-Aime from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated June 21, 2018. Pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, and upon the certification of Sanchia Palmer, dated August 9, 2018, it isORDERED that the appellant is granted leave to proceed as a poor person on the appeal, and the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:William David EddyOne Barker Avenue, Suite 230White Plains, NY 10601914-949-0109and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel shall promptly attempt to contact the appellant at the address provided by this Court, and on or before September 7, 2018, shall notify the Case Manager assigned to the appeal, in writing, that he has done so and that either(1) the appellant is interested in prosecuting the appeal, or(2) the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, or that he has been unable to contact the appellant, and wishes to be relieved of the assignment; 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 child, 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’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 the appellant’s brief upon those parties; and it is further,ORDERED that the assigned counsel 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 upon a determination that the appellant is interested in proceeding with the appeal, the assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.MATTER of Madeline Garcia, ap, v. Maritza Lopez-Garcia res — V-7982-13, V-7983-13, V-7984-13, V-1985-13, V-7986-13, V7987-13, V-7988-13) — Application by the appellant’s assigned counsel to be relived of the assignment on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated March 16, 2018, and for the assignment of new counsel. By order on certification of this Court dated April 20, 2018, the appellant was granted leave to proceed as a poor person on the appeal, and the following named attorney was assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:Lauren B. Glenn777 Westchester Avenue, Suite 101White Plains, New York 10604(203) 832-9082Upon 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 former counsel is directed to turn over all papers MATTER to new counsel herein assigned; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:George E. Reed, Jr.222 Mamaroneck Avenue, #303White Plains, NY 10605914-946-5000and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to §670.4(a) of the rules of this Court (22 NYCRR 670.4[a]), 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 October 23, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order on motion upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Madeline Garcia, ap, v. Maritza Lopez-Garcia res — Appeal by Madeline Garcia from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated March 16, 2018. By order on certification of this Court dated April 20, 2018, the appellant was granted poor person relief and the following attorney was assigned as counsel for the appellant on the appeal:Lauren B. Glenn777 Westchester Avenue, Suite 101White Plains, New York 10604(203) 832-9082On the Court’s own motion, it isORDERED that counsel is relieved of the assignment and is directed to turn over all papers MATTER to new counsel herein assigned; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to Family Court Act §§1118 and 1120, the following named attorney is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal:George E. Reed, Jr.222 Mamaroneck Avenue, #303White Plains, NY 10605914-946-5000and it is further,ORDERED that within 30 days after the date of this decision and order on motion, the assigned counsel shall file in the office of the Clerk of this Court one of the following:(1) an affidavit or affirmation stating that there are no minutes of any Family Court proceeding to be transcribed for the appeal; or(2) if there are such minutes, an affidavit or affirmation stating that the transcript has been received, and indicating the date received; or(3) if the transcripts has not been received, an affidavit or affirmation stating that the order on certification of this Court dated April 20 , 2018, 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 above actions described in (1), (2), (3), or (4) above, has been taken within 30 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, the Clerk of this Court shall issue an order to all parties to the appeal to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed; and it is further,ORDERED that assigned counsel is directed to serve a copy of this decision and order on motion upon the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.By Rivera, J.P.; Leventhal, Miller and Christopher, JJ.Heather Quesenberry, res, v. Michael Quesenberry, ap — Motion by the appellant to stay enforcement of so much of a decision of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, dated July 19, 2018, as permits the respondent to relocate with the subject children to Newton, Connecticut, and to direct that the subject children shall continue to reside in Mahopac, New York, pending hearing and determination of an appeal from the decision.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appeal from the decision 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 motion is denied as academic.RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MILLER and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.By Scheinkman, P.J.; Austin, Miller and Connolly, JJ.MATTER of Khamari P. (Anonymous), ap — Motion by the appellant to stay all proceedings in the above-entitled action pending hearing and determination of an appeal from a decision and an order of the Family Court, Kings County, both dated April 23, 2018.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it isORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appeal from the decision 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 on the Court’s own motion, the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from a nondispositional order in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3 (see Family Ct Act §1112), and leave to appeal has not been granted; and it is further,ORDERED that the motion is denied as academic.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., AUSTIN, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.Order on Application released on: August 24, 2018In the 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 is ORDERED that the applications are granted and the following parties in the following causes are granted the specified extensions of time:
