Opinion
2022-60344 Motion 2021-00203 KC
01-05-2022
Mayan Eden, Respondent, v. Stella Tranquilina Alvillar, Appellant, and Carnegie Management, Respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DECISION
THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, P.J., MICHELLE WESTON, DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Motion by respondent Mayan Eden to strike the appellant's brief on an appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered November 19, 2019, or, in the alternative, for an enlargement of time to serve and file a respondent's brief and for costs. Cross motion by appellant to enlarge the record on appeal. Separate application by respondent Mayan Eden to enlarge the time to serve and file a respondent's brief. Separate application by respondent Carnegie Management to enlarge the time to serve and file a respondent's brief.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and cross motion, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion and cross motion and the applications are consolidated for the purposes of disposition; and it is further, ORDERED that the branches of respondent Eden's motion seeking to strike the appellant's brief and for costs are denied; and it is further, ORDERED that the branch of respondent Eden's motion seeking an enlargement of time to serve and file a respondent's brief is granted and respondent Eden shall serve and file said brief within 21 days of this decision and order; and it is further, ORDERED that respondent Eden's application to enlarge the time to serve and file a respondent's brief is denied as duplicative; and it is further, ORDERED that respondent Carnegie Management's application to enlarge the time to serve and file a respondent's brief is granted and respondent Carnegie Management shall serve and file said brief within 21 days from the date of this order; and it is further, ORDERED that appellant, if she be so advised, may serve and file a reply brief within 14 days of the date that the respective respondents' briefs are due to be filed pursuant to this decision and order; and it is further, ORDERED that appellant's cross motion is denied.
It is noted that this court will not consider any matter that is dehors the record (see Chimarios v Duhl, 152 A.D.2d 508 [1989]), and that it is not necessary to enlarge the record if the material sought to be submitted is subject to judicial notice (see Sunrise Check Cashing & Payroll Servs. v Town of Hempstead, 19 N.Y.3d 848 [2012]).