Opinion
Motion No. 2018-13098 Index No. 516351/2017
03-13-2023
Faye T. Madigan, etc., appellant-respondent, v. Berkeley Capital, LLC, et al., defendants, Rosa Bronstein, et al., defendants-respondents, Oceana Holding Corp., respondent-appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DECISION
M287820
BETSY BARROS, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 22, 2018, which were determined by decision and order of this Court dated May 18, 2022. Motion by the appellant-respondent, inter alia, for leave to reargue the appeal and cross appeal. Separate motion by the appellant-respondent for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision and order of this Court. Separate motion by the appellant-respondent to stay enforcement of stated portions of the decision and order of this Court dated May 18, 2022, pending determination of the motions, inter alia, for leave to reargue the appeal and cross appeal and for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and pending determination of an appeal by the Court of Appeals, should leave to appeal to that Court be granted.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motions and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motions, inter alia, for leave to reargue the appeal and cross appeal and for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals are denied, with $100 costs; and it is further, ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to stay enforcement of stated portions of the decision and order of this Court dated May 18, 2022, pending determination of the motions, inter alia, for leave to reargue the appeal and cross appeal and for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals are denied as academic; and it is further, ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to stay enforcement of stated portions of the decision and order of this Court dated May 18, 2022, pending determination of an appeal by the Court of Appeals, should leave to appeal to that Court be granted, is denied without prejudice to seeking appropriate relief before the Court of Appeals.
BARROS, J.P., RIVERA, MALTESE and FORD, JJ., concur.