Opinion
Motion No: CA 11-02445 DOCKET NO. CA 11-02446 DOCKET NO. CA 11-02447 DOCKET NO. CA 12-00244
05-24-2012
PATRICIA CURTO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ZITTEL'S DAIRY FARM, JOHN ZITTEL, SANDY ZITTEL, THOMAS DEXTER, JEFFREY GASPER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.) PATRICIA CURTO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ZITTEL'S DAIRY FARM, JOHN ZITTEL, SANDY ZITTEL, THOMAS DEXTER, JEFFREY GASPER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. (APPEAL NO. 2.) PATRICIA CURTO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ZITTEL'S DAIRY FARM, JOHN ZITTEL, SANDY ZITTEL, THOMAS DEXTER, JEFFREY GASPER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. (APPEAL NO. 3.) PATRICIA CURTO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ZITTEL'S DAIRY FARM, JOHN ZITTEL, SANDY ZITTEL, THOMAS DEXTER, JEFFREY GASPER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. (APPEAL NO. 4.)
PRESENT: , P. J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.
Appellant having moved for an extension of time to perfect appeals taken herein from the orders and judgment of the Supreme Court entered in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Erie on March 8, 2011, and July 11, 2011, and having moved for an order finding the Erie County Clerk Christopher L. Jacobs, Deputy County Clerk Patricia Fulwiler, and Principal Court Reporter Carolyn A. Vario, in contempt of Court,
Now, upon reading and filing the affidavits of Patricia J. Curto sworn to April 11, 2012, and April 20, 2012, the notice of motion with proof of service thereof, the affirmation of Kathleen M. Arnold, Esq., dated April 26, 2012, the affirmation of Jeremy C. Toth, Esq., dated April 27, 2012, and the affidavit of Carolyn A. Vario sworn to April 25, 2012, and due deliberation having been had thereon,
It is hereby ORDERED that the motion insofar as it seeks a contempt order is denied, and
It is further ORDERED that the motion insofar as it seeks an extension of time to perfect appeal Nos. 1 through 3 is granted to the extent that the ordering paragraph of the order of this Court entered March 1, 2012, is hereby amended by deleting the date May 7, 2012, and inserting in its place the date August 22, 2012, and
It is further ORDERED that the motion insofar as it seeks an extension of time to perfect appeal No. 4 is dismissed as premature (see 22 NYCRR 1000.13 [f]).
Memorandum: No further extensions of time to perfect appeal Nos. 1 through 3 will be granted.
Frances E. Cafarell, Clerk