Hom v. Hom

210 A.D.2d 298, 622 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13734

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hom v. Hom. Read the opinion of the Court — 210 A.D.2d 296 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 12, 1994·Published

Opinion

—Motion by the appellant on an appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, both dated June 19, 1992, inter alia, to strike the respondent’s-brief.

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

Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent that Page 1, Paragraph 4, Page 3, Paragraphs 2 and 3, Page 4, Paragraph 2, and the portion of Page 5, Paragraph 1 which alludes to the fact that the court ordered additional relief due to malpractice, are stricken, as they contain references to matters which are dehors the record. Those matters have not been considered on the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the motion is otherwise denied. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Motion by the appellant on an appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, both dated June 19, 1992, inter alia, to strike the respondent’s-brief.

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

Ordered that the motion is otherwise denied. Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Hom v. Hom, 210 A.D.2d 298, 622 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

210 A.D.2d 298 (Hom v. Hom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.