Opinion
15244-20L
10-14-2021
ORDER
Maurice B. Foley, Chief Judge
On August 24, 2021, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave To File Reply to Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion for leave was not, however, accompanied by the proposed Reply. Accordingly, the Court directed petitioners to lodge, on or before September 23, 2021, the proposed Reply.
On September 23, 2021, petitioners filed a Reply to Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment. On the same date, petitioners filed a second Reply to Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon review, the Court notes that the filings are duplicative.
On September 24, 2021, petitioners filed a Declaration of Victor P. Republicano, Jr., Petitioner in Support of Reply to Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment. On the same date, petitioners filed a second Declaration of Victor P. Republicano, Jr., Petitioner in Support of Reply to Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon review, the Court notes that the filings are duplicative.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that petitioners' Motion for Leave To File Reply to Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment, filed August 24, 2021, is granted nunc pro tunc as of September 23, 2021. It is further
ORDERED that petitioners' Reply to Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 23, 2021, at Index No. 12, is hereby deemed stricken from the Court's record in this case. It is further
ORDERED that petitioners' Declaration of Victor P. Republicano, Jr., Petitioner in Support of Reply to Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 24, 2021, at Index No. 14, is hereby deemed stricken from the Court's record in this case.
1