Zee v. Hicksville Union Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zee v. Hicksville Union Free School District

210 A.D.2d 240, 622 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12478

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 240 (Zee v. Hicksville Union Free School District) 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

Zee v. Hicksville Union Free School District, 210 A.D.2d 240, 622 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Motion by the appellant on an appeal from five orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 22, 1992, January 19, 1993, January 25, 1993, January 26, 1993, and June 7, 1993, respectively, to strike the respondents’ brief and appendix, for costs and disbursements, for sanctions, and for related relief.

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 the portions of the respondent’s appendix and brief pertaining to the motion for renewal and reargument of the order dated January 25, 1993, which motion has not yet been decided, as well as the deposition testimony of Jane Maloney are deemed stricken, and they have not been considered on these appeals; and it is further,

Ordered that the motion is otherwise denied. Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Joy and Krausman, 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 five orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 22, 1992, January 19, 1993, January 25, 1993, January 26, 1993, and June 7, 1993, respectively, to strike the respondents’ brief and appendix, for costs and disbursements, for sanctions, and for related relief.

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 the portions of the respondent’s appendix and brief pertaining to the motion for renewal and reargument of the order dated January 25, 1993, which motion has not yet been decided, as well as the deposition testimony of Jane Maloney are deemed stricken, and they have not been considered on these appeals; and it is further,

Ordered that the motion is otherwise denied. Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 240, 622 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zee-v-hicksville-union-free-school-district-nyappdiv-1994.