Opinion
Motion No: 2011-03512 2011-03513 2011-03514 Index No. 2022/10 M123514
08-05-2011
Cherubin Antiques, Inc., plaintiff, Lenore Malvasio, et al., appellants, v. Mark Matiash, etc., et al., defendants-respondents; Paul T. Vink, etc., nonparty-respondent.
, J.P.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Motion by the nonparty-respondent Paul T. Vink on appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 18, 2011, and two orders of the same court entered February 28, 2011 and March 9, 2011, respectively, to dismiss the appeal from the order dated February 18, 2011, docketed under Appellate Division Docket No. 2011-03513, on the ground that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. Separate motion by the respondents Jaime Ezratty and Ezratty, Ezratty & Levine, LLP, to dismiss the appeal from the order entered February 28, 2011, docketed under Appellate Division Docket No. 2011-03512, on the ground that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument and to dismiss purported appeals from an order and a judgment of the same court dated July 22, 2010, and August 4, 2010, respectively.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motions and the papers filed in opposition to the motion by respondents Jaime Ezratty and Ezratty, Ezratty & Levine, LLP, and no papers havening been filed in opposition or in relation to the motion by nonparty-respondent Paul T. Vink, it is
ORDERED that the nonparty-respondent Paul T. Vink's motion to dismiss is granted to the extent that the appeal from so much of the order dated February 18, 2011, docketed under Appellate Division Docket No. 2011-03513, as denied that branch of the underlying motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, and the motion to dismiss is otherwise denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the motion of the respondents Jaime Ezratty and Ezratty, Ezratty & Levine, LLP, to dismiss is granted to the extent that the appeal from so much of the order entered February 28, 2011, docketed under Appellate Division Docket No. 2011-03512, as denied that branch of the underlying motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, the motion is denied with respect to the appeal from the remainder of that order, and the motion is otherwise denied with respect to the purported appeals from the order and judgment dated July 22, 2010, and August 4, 2010, respectively, on the ground that no appeals were taken from that order or judgment.
COVELLO, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, DICKERSON and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court