Justices hearing in New York

2024By decision and order on motion of this Court dated March 27, 2023, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the dismissal of a prior appeal for failure to timely perfect precludes consideration of the issues to be raised on the appeal from the order dated January 7, 2022, pursuant to Bray v Cox ( 38 NY2d 350 ), was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

2012By decision and order on motion of this Court dated August 17, 2011, inter alia, that branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that certain issues raised on the appeal are barred by the doctrine of Bray v Cox ( 38 NY2d 350 [1976]) was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

2014Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to strike references to resettlement at pages 20-23, and 64-65 of the respondent’s brief is granted, and those portions of the respondent’s brief are stricken and have not been considered in the determination of the appeal (see People v Stocks, 101 AD3d 1049 [2012]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756 [2012]).

2014Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to strike references to resettlement at pages 20-23, and 64-65 of the respondent’s brief is granted, and those portions of the respondent’s brief are stricken and have not been considered in the determination of the appeal (see People v Stocks, 101 AD3d 1049 [2012]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756 [2012]).

2014Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to strike references to resettlement at pages 20-23, and 64-65 of the respondent’s brief is granted, and those portions of the respondent’s brief are stricken and have not been considered in the determination of the appeal (see People v Stocks, 101 AD3d 1049 [2012]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756 [2012]).

2014Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to strike references to resettlement at pages 20-23, and 64-65 of the respondent’s brief is granted, and those portions of the respondent’s brief are stricken and have not been considered in the determination of the appeal (see People v Stocks, 101 AD3d 1049 [2012]; People v Powell, 101 AD3d 756 [2012]).

2014Upon 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 branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appendix is inadequate is granted to the extent the defendant challenges the weekly nondurational maintenance and child support awards, that branch of the motion is otherwise denied, and that branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant’s appendix contains an altered document is denied; and it is further, Ordered that the judgment i

2014Upon 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 branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appendix is inadequate is granted to the extent the defendant challenges the weekly nondurational maintenance and child support awards, that branch of the motion is otherwise denied, and that branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant’s appendix contains an altered document is denied; and it is further, Ordered that the judgment i

2013Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeals, it is, Ordered that the motion is granted except insofar as the appeals seek to review the denial of the father’s application for an adjournment of the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is, Ordered that the appeals from the orders of fact-finding and disposition are dismissed except insofar as they bring up for review the denial of the father’s application for an adjournment of the fact-finding and dispositional hea

2013Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeals, it is, Ordered that the motion is granted except insofar as the appeals seek to review the denial of the father’s application for an adjournment of the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is, Ordered that the appeals from the orders of fact-finding and disposition are dismissed except insofar as they bring up for review the denial of the father’s application for an adjournment of the fact-finding and dispositional hea

2013Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeals, it is Ordered that the branches of the motion which were to dismiss the appeals from the orders dated June 10, 2011, and September 1, 2011, are denied as academic in light of our determination of the appeals from those orders (see Weissman v Weissman, 103 AD3d 886 [2013] [decided herewith]); and it is further, Ordered that the branches of the motion which were to impose a sanction upon the appellant and for an award of costs are denied.

2013Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeals, it is Ordered that the branches of the motion which were to dismiss the appeals from the orders dated June 10, 2011, and September 1, 2011, are denied as academic in light of our determination of the appeals from those orders (see Weissman v Weissman, 103 AD3d 886 [2013] [decided herewith]); and it is further, Ordered that the branches of the motion which were to impose a sanction upon the appellant and for an award of costs are denied.

2013Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeals, it is Ordered that the branch of the motion which was to strike stated portions of the proposed intervenor-appellant’s brief is denied as academic in light of our determination of the appeals (see Spota v County of Suffolk, 110 AD3d 785 [2013] [decided herewith]).

2013Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeals, it is Ordered that the branch of the motion which was to strike stated portions of the proposed intervenor-appellant’s brief is denied as academic in light of our determination of the appeals (see Spota v County of Suffolk, 110 AD3d 785 [2013] [decided herewith]).

2013Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to strike from the record the affidavits on pages 59 through 62 of the record and those portions of the brief which refer to those affidavits is granted, and those portions of the record and the appellant’s brief are stricken and have not been considered on the appeal (see People v DeLuca, 45 AD3d 777 [2007]).

2013Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to strike from the record the affidavits on pages 59 through 62 of the record and those portions of the brief which refer to those affidavits is granted, and those portions of the record and the appellant’s brief are stricken and have not been considered on the appeal (see People v DeLuca, 45 AD3d 777 [2007]).

2013Upon the papers filed in support of the motion of nonparty Magnus Essunger and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeals, it is, Ordered that the branch of the motion of nonparty Magnus Essunger which was for leave to appeal from the order dated August 21, 2012, is denied (see Ciampi v Hofstra Univ., 299 AD2d 386 [2002]); and it is further, Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the cross appeal, purportedly taken as of right, is dismissed; and it is further, Ordered that the order dated August 21, 2012, is reversed insofar as appealed from by Diana Parker

2013Upon the papers filed in support of the motion of nonparty Magnus Essunger and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeals, it is, Ordered that the branch of the motion of nonparty Magnus Essunger which was for leave to appeal from the order dated August 21, 2012, is denied (see Ciampi v Hofstra Univ., 299 AD2d 386 [2002]); and it is further, Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the cross appeal, purportedly taken as of right, is dismissed; and it is further, Ordered that the order dated August 21, 2012, is reversed insofar as appealed from by Diana Parker

2012Upon 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 motion is denied (see Martin v Chase & Sons, 119 AD2d 888 [1986]; Vitale v La Cour, 92 AD2d 892, 893 [1983]; Mack v Edell, 1 AD2d 937 [1956]; Hendry v Hilton, 283 App Div 168, 171-172 [1953]; Gradl v Saulpaugh, 268 App Div 787 [1944]).

2012Upon 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 motion is denied (see Martin v Chase & Sons, 119 AD2d 888 [1986]; Vitale v La Cour, 92 AD2d 892, 893 [1983]; Mack v Edell, 1 AD2d 937 [1956]; Hendry v Hilton, 283 App Div 168, 171-172 [1953]; Gradl v Saulpaugh, 268 App Div 787 [1944]).

2012Upon the papers filed in support of the subject branch of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is, Ordered that the branch of the motion which was to dismiss the appeal is denied (see Asman v Durst, 98 AD3d 1068 [2012] [decided herewith]).

2012Upon the papers filed in support of the subject branch of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is, Ordered that the branch of the motion which was to dismiss the appeal is denied (see Asman v Durst, 98 AD3d 1068 [2012] [decided herewith]).

2012Upon the papers filed, in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeals, it is Ordered that the motion is denied as academic in light of our determination of the appeals (see Behar v Wiblishauser, 99 AD3d 838 [2012] [decided herewith]).

2012Upon the papers filed, in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeals, it is Ordered that the motion is denied as academic in light of our determination of the appeals (see Behar v Wiblishauser, 99 AD3d 838 [2012] [decided herewith]).

2012Upon 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 motion is denied (see Martin v Chase & Sons, 119 AD2d 888 [1986]; Vitale v La Cour, 92 AD2d 892, 893 [1983]; Mack v Edell, 1 AD2d 937 [1956]; Hendry v Hilton, 283 App Div 168, 171-172 [1953]; Gradl v Saulpaugh, 268 App Div 787 [1944]).

2012Upon 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 motion is denied (see Martin v Chase & Sons, 119 AD2d 888 [1986]; Vitale v La Cour, 92 AD2d 892, 893 [1983]; Mack v Edell, 1 AD2d 937 [1956]; Hendry v Hilton, 283 App Div 168, 171-172 [1953]; Gradl v Saulpaugh, 268 App Div 787 [1944]).

2012Upon the papers filed in support of the cross motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is Ordered that the cross motion is denied (see Matter of Tripp, 101 AD3d 1137 [2012] [decided herewith]).

2012Upon the papers filed in support of the cross motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is Ordered that the cross motion is denied (see Matter of Tripp, 101 AD3d 1137 [2012] [decided herewith]).

2012Upon 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 motion is denied (see Martin v Chase & Sons, 119 AD2d 888 [1986]; Vitale v La Cour, 92 AD2d 892, 893 [1983]; Mack v Edell, 1 AD2d 937 [1956]; Hendry v Hilton, 283 App Div 168, 171-172 [1953]; Gradl v Saulpaugh, 268 App Div 787 [1944]).

2012Upon 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 motion is denied (see Martin v Chase & Sons, 119 AD2d 888 [1986]; Vitale v La Cour, 92 AD2d 892, 893 [1983]; Mack v Edell, 1 AD2d 937 [1956]; Hendry v Hilton, 283 App Div 168, 171-172 [1953]; Gradl v Saulpaugh, 268 App Div 787 [1944]).

1992Counsel’s motion to be relieved pursuant to People v Saunders ( 52 AD2d 833 ) on the ground that no non-frivolous issues may be raised on appeal from the judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Adlerberg, J., at Wade and Dunaway hearings; Dorothy Cropper, J., at plea and sentence), rendered October 30, 1990, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of from 6 to 12 years, is unanimously denied, counsel is sua sponte relieved without compensation, and new counsel is assigned to pros

1992In seeking to be relieved in accordance with People v Saunders (supra), assigned appellate counsel has submitted a perfunctory brief, devoid of facts regarding the crime or the circumstances of the arrest, and conclusory in its statement that there are no non-frivolous issues which might arguably support the appeal.

2023Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, upon the papers filed in support of the cross-motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to compel the defendant Northeastern Anesthesia Services, P.C., to produce nonparty Roger Raichelson for a further deposition to answer certain questions is granted, and that branch of the

2022Motion by the appellant for this Court, inter alia, to take judicial notice of a decision and order of this Court dated February 19, 2020 ( Lauder v Goldhamer , 180 AD3d 885 ), and an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated December 7, 2020.

2018Upon 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 branch of the motion which is to strike stated portions of the respondent's brief is granted, and those portions of the respondent's brief that refer to and rely on the grand jury minutes are deemed stricken and have not been considered on the appeal ( see People v Broughton, 40 AD3d 1007, 1008 ; cf. People v Sinha, 84 AD3d 35 , 45 n, affd 19 NY3d 932 ).

2018Upon 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 branch of the motion which is to strike stated portions of the respondent's brief is granted, and those portions of the respondent's brief that refer to and rely on the grand jury minutes are deemed stricken and have not been considered on the appeal ( see People v Broughton, 40 AD3d 1007, 1008 ; cf. People v Sinha, 84 AD3d 35 , 45 n, affd 19 NY3d 932 ).

2018Upon 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 branch of the motion which is to strike stated portions of the respondent's brief is granted, and those portions of the respondent's brief that refer to and rely on the grand jury minutes are deemed stricken and have not been considered on the appeal ( see People v Broughton, 40 AD3d 1007, 1008 ; cf. People v Sinha, 84 AD3d 35 , 45 n, affd 19 NY3d 932 ).