Motion List Released on: February 10, 2021
By Austin, J.P., Miller, Nelson, Wooten, JJ. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, ETC., res, v. JAKE LEWIS, app, ET AL., def — Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 19, 2019, which was deemed dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.10(a). Motion by the appellant pro se, in effect, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.10(c) to vacate the dismissal of the appeal pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.10(a), to extend the time to perfect the appeal, and to waive certification of the record pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.7(g). Cross motion by the respondent to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no appeal lies from a motion denying reargument. Separate motion by the appellant to strike the respondent’s cross motion reply papers, to disqualify the respondent’s counsel, and to impose a sanction upon the respondent’s counsel. Separate cross motion by the respondent to preclude the appellant from filing further motions concerning this appeal without prior leave of this Court. Upon the papers filed in support of the motions and the cross motions, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is ORDERED that the motion, in effect, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.10(c) to vacate the dismissal of the appeal pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.10(a), to extend the time to perfect the appeal, and to waive certification of the record pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.7(g) is granted, the dismissal of the appeal pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.10(a) is vacated, the appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is extended, and on or before April 12, 2021, the appellant shall serve the record and the appellant’s brief and upload digital copies of the record and the appellant’s brief, with proof of service thereof, through the digital portal on this Court’s website, and file an original and five hard copies of the record and the appellant’s brief in accordance with any applicable administrative order or other order to be issued by the Court; and it is further, ORDERED that the cross motions and the motion to strike the respondent’s cross motion reply papers, to disqualify the respondent’s counsel, and to impose a sanction upon the respondent’s counsel are denied. AUSTIN, J.P., MILLER, BRATHWAITE NELSON and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.
