State v. Wolf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Wolf

77 A.D.2d 869, 431 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12660

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

DecidedAugust 4, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.2d 869 (State v. Wolf) 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

State v. Wolf, 77 A.D.2d 869, 431 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover overpayments of Medicaid reimbursements, defendants Howard Wolf, Fay Wolf and Margot Service Corp. appeal (by permission), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 29, 1979, as denied their motion to strike "prejudicial and ambiguous matter” from the complaint. Order modified by adding thereto, immediately after the provision denying the motion to strike "prejudicial and ambiguous matter”, the following: "except that the portion of paragraph 93 of the complaint which begins with the words 'and further, that if the Defendants had accurately’ and ends with the words 'fair and reasonable profit’, is stricken. As so modified, order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The excised portion was prejudicial rhetoric which added nothing to the substance of the complaint (see CPLR 3024, subd [b]). Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover overpayments of Medicaid reimbursements, defendants Howard Wolf, Fay Wolf and Margot Service Corp. appeal (by permission), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 29, 1979, as denied their motion to strike "prejudicial and ambiguous matter” from the complaint. Order modified by adding thereto, immediately after the provision denying the motion to strike "prejudicial and ambiguous matter”, the following: "except that the portion of paragraph 93 of the complaint which begins with the words 'and further, that if the Defendants had accurately’ and ends with the words 'fair and reasonable profit’, is stricken. As so modified, order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The excised portion was prejudicial rhetoric which added nothing to the substance of the complaint (see CPLR 3024, subd [b]). Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.2d 869, 431 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wolf-nyappdiv-1980.