Matter of Alice D. (Lupoli)

Matter of Alice D. (Lupoli) 2013 NY Slip Op 00083 Decided on January 9, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 9, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2011-10297
(Index No. 5920/01)

[*1]In the Matter of Alice D. (Anonymous).

and

Matthew M. Lupoli, as guardian of the person and property of Alice D. (Anonymous); Edward G. Bailey, et al., nonparty-appellants; George Brucker, nonparty-respondent.




Bailey & Sherman, P.C., Douglaston, N.Y. (Anthony V. Gentile
and Edward G. Bailey, pro se, of counsel), nonparty-appellant pro
se, and for nonparty-appellants Keishma Smallwood and Alice
Collins.
Joseph V. DiBlasi, New York, N.Y., for nonparty-respondent (no
brief filed).
Peter M. Redmond, Bayside, N.Y., for Matthew M. Lupoli, as
guardian of the person and property of
Alice D.


DECISION & ORDER

In a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81, nonparties Edward G. Bailey, Bailey & Sherman, P.C., Keishma Smallwood, and Alice Collins appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Mayerson, J.), dated September 26, 2011, which, inter alia, denied their motion for leave to renew and reargue the opposition of Edward G. Bailey to the motion of nonparty George Brucker for "reimbursement of legal fee[s]" incurred by him in defending an action entitled Smallwood v Lupoli, commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Case No. 04-CV-686, which was granted by an order of the same court (Thomas, J.), dated December 28, 2010.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from so much of the order dated November 26, 2011, as denied that branch of the appellants' motion which was for leave to reargue must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. The appeal must otherwise be dismissed as academic in light of our determination on a companion appeal (see Matter of Alice D. [Anonymous],AD3d, Appellate Division Docket No. 2011-02441 [decided herewith]).
DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, CHAMBERS and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court