Overeem v. Neuhoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Overeem v. Neuhoff

254 A.D.2d 400, 693 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11128

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 19, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 400 (Overeem v. Neuhoff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Overeem v. Neuhoff, 254 A.D.2d 400, 693 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion by the respondent, inter alia, to expunge from the record on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 19, 1997, the [401]*401exhibits listed on pages 3 and 4 of the affirmation of Steven Mandell dated November 14, 1997, and to redact all reference thereto in her brief. By decision and order dated January 9, 1998, the aforementioned branch of the motion was held in abeyance and was referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission of the appeal.

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

Ordered that the aforementioned branch of the motion is granted, and the exhibits listed on pages 3 and 4 of the affirmation of Steven Mandell dated November 14, 1997, and all references to those exhibits in the appellant’s brief are deemed stricken and have not been considered in determining the appeal (see, Norgauer v Norgauer, 126 AD2d 957; Matter ofYanoff v Commissioner of Educ. of State of N Y, 64 AD2d 763; Tobin v Union News Co., 18 AD2d 243, affd 13 NY2d 1155). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Motion by the respondent, inter alia, to expunge from the record on an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 19, 1997, the [401]*401exhibits listed on pages 3 and 4 of the affirmation of Steven Mandell dated November 14, 1997, and to redact all reference thereto in her brief. By decision and order dated January 9, 1998, the aforementioned branch of the motion was held in abeyance and was referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission of the appeal.

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

Ordered that the aforementioned branch of the motion is granted, and the exhibits listed on pages 3 and 4 of the affirmation of Steven Mandell dated November 14, 1997, and all references to those exhibits in the appellant’s brief are deemed stricken and have not been considered in determining the appeal (see, Norgauer v Norgauer, 126 AD2d 957; Matter ofYanoff v Commissioner of Educ. of State of N Y, 64 AD2d 763; Tobin v Union News Co., 18 AD2d 243, affd 13 NY2d 1155). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 400, 693 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overeem-v-neuhoff-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack