From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Siodlak v. Light

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9th & 10th Judicial Districts
Mar 9, 2015
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 67081 (N.Y. App. Term 2015)

Opinion

Motion No: 2013-01126 PC 2013-1126 P C

03-09-2015

Darlene Siodlak et al., Respondents, v. Elizabeth Light et al., Appellants.


ANGELA G. IANNACCI

JERRY GARGUILO, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by respondents on appeals from an order of the Justice Court of the Town of Carmel, Putnam County, entered May 15, 2013 (appeal No. 2013-1126 P C), and a judgment of the same court entered September 30, 2013 (appeal No. 2014-1509 P C), to dismiss the appeals for failure to timely perfect, or, in the alternative, to consolidate the appeals, enlarge the time to serve and file a respondents' brief, and vacate a stay granted by decision and order on motion of this court dated October 3, 2014.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that the appeal from the order entered May 15, 2013 (appeal No. 2013-1126 P C) is dismissed on the ground of mootness, as the order denied appellants' motion to stay execution of the warrant through June 30, 2013 (see State of New York v General Elec. Co., 103 AD2d 985 [1984]), and on the further ground of abandonment, as appellants have submitted a brief which raises no argument with respect to the order (see 400 E. 77th Owners, Inc. V New York Eng'g Assn., P.C., 122 AD3d 474 [2014]; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branches of respondents' motion seeking to dismiss the appeal from the order entered May 15, 2013 or, in the alternative, to consolidate that appeal with the appeal from the judgment are denied as moot; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of respondents' motion seeking to dismiss the appeal from the judgment (appeal No. 2014-1509 P C) is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of respondents' motion seeking to vacate the stay is granted and the stay is vacated; and it is further,

ORDERED that the branch of respondents' motion seeking an enlargement of time to serve and file a respondents' brief is granted and the respondents' brief shall be served and filed within 21 days of the date of this decision and order on motion; and it is further,

ORDERED that appellant, if she be so advised, may serve and file a reply brief within 14 days of the date that the respondents' brief is due to be filed pursuant to this decision and order on motion.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk


Summaries of

Siodlak v. Light

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9th & 10th Judicial Districts
Mar 9, 2015
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 67081 (N.Y. App. Term 2015)
Case details for

Siodlak v. Light

Case Details

Full title:Darlene Siodlak et al., Respondents, v. Elizabeth Light et al., Appellants.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Dept., 9th & 10th Judicial Districts

Date published: Mar 9, 2015

Citations

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 67081 (N.Y. App. Term 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 67076