Goodyear v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health

Full title: IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA ANN GOODYEAR, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. NEW YORK…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 23, 2017

2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 90729 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. CA 17-01682 DOCKET NO. CAF 17-01771

10-23-2017

IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA ANN GOODYEAR, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DEFENDANT, AND JEANENE JUNE DEMARC, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL No. 1.) IN THE MATTER OF JEANENE JUNE DEMARC, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. PATRICIA ANN GOODYEAR, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ.

PRESENT:

Petitioner-respondent having moved to dismiss the appeal taken herein from an order of the Supreme Court entered in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Onondaga on March 31, 2017 (appeal No. 1), on the ground that appellant failed to perfect timely the appeal, and appellant having cross-moved to consolidate appeal No. 1 with an appeal taken herein from an order of Family Court, Onondaga County, entered in the Office of the Clerk of said court on June 15, 2017 (appeal No. 2), and to deem appeal No. 1 to be taken from an amended order of Supreme Court entered in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Onondaga June 1, 2017, and for the Court to set a schedule for perfecting the appeals,

Now, upon reading and filing the affirmations of Andrea M. Ferro, Esq., dated August 21, 2017, and October 13, 2017, the affidavit of Patricia Ann Goodyear sworn to September 22, 2017, the affirmation of Michael Steinberg, Esq., dated October 10, 2017, the notices of motion and cross motion with proof of service thereof, and the affirmation of Kathleen M. Treasure, Esq., dated October 12, 2017, and due deliberation having been had thereon,

It is hereby ORDERED that petitioner-respondent's motion is granted insofar as it seeks to dismiss appeal No. 1 for failure to perfect timely the appeal, and appeal No. 1 is dismissed without further order unless the appeal is perfected on or before December 22, 2017, and

It is further ORDERED that respondent-appellant's cross motion is denied insofar as it seeks to consolidate the appeals without prejudice to a motion to schedule oral argument of both appeals for the same date once they are separately perfected, and

It is further ORDERED that appellant's cross motion is denied insofar as it seeks an order deeming appeal No. 1 to be from the amended order (see Matter of Moody v Sorokina, 56 AD3d 1246, 1247), and

It is further ORDERED that appellant's cross motion is denied as unnecessary insofar as it seeks an order setting forth a schedule for perfection of the appeals (see 22 NYCRR 1000.2 [b]).

Entered: October 23, 2017

Mark W. Bennett, Clerk