Opinion
Motion No. 2023-09531 Docket Nos. V-4000-2022/2022J V-8386-2022/2023G
12-15-2023
In the Matter of Julianna Pineda, appellant, v. Besim Ukaj, respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DECISION
M293017
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, BARRY E. WARHIT, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Appeal by Julianna Pineda from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated October 10, 2023. Motion by the appellant, in effect, for summary reversal of the order or, in the alternative, to stay enforcement of the order, pending hearing and determination of the appeal. Separate motion by the appellant for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, for the assignment of counsel, and for a preference in the calendaring of the appeal.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, in effect, for summary reversal of the order or to stay enforcement of the order and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the motion for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, for the assignment of counsel, and for a preference in the calendaring of the appeal and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion, in effect, for summary reversal of the order or, in the alternative, to stay enforcement of the order, pending hearing and determination of the appeal, is denied; and it is further, ORDERED that the branches of the motion which are for leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel are denied, with leave to renew within 30 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, upon proper papers, including the appellant's affidavit setting forth the appellant's full financial situation including all assets, both real and personal, as well as any and all sources of income, and the amount and source of counsel fees paid to retained counsel in the Family Court and in this Court; and it is further, ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is for a preference in the calendaring of the appeal is denied as unnecessary (see 22 NYCRR 670.3[b]).
DILLON, J.P., MILLER, WARHIT and VENTURA, JJ., concur.