| Matter of Abraham v Banaszek; Banaszek v Abraham |
| Motion No: 2022-06732 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2025 NY Slip Op 64828(U) |
| Decided on March 17, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M303643
AFA/
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P.
WILLIAM G. FORD
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.
|
2022-06732, 2022-06733, 2022-06734, 2022-06735 In the Matter of Jessey Ann Abraham, respondent, v Maurycy Banaszek, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Maurycy Banaszek, appellant, v Jessey Ann Abraham, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) (Docket Nos. V-9271-2018/2020B, V-3457-2019)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeals by Maurycy Banaszek from a decision of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated July 14, 2022, and three orders of the same court, all dated July 14, 2022. Motion by the appellant to strike stated portions of the brief of the attorney for the child and the respondent's brief on the ground that they refer to matter dehors the record, and to extend the time to serve and file a reply brief.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to strike stated portions of the brief of the attorney for the child is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to strike stated portions of the respondent's brief is granted to the extent that the sentence on page 66 of the respondent's brief beginning with the words, "In fact" and ending with the words, "at minimum" are stricken, and on or before April 16, 2025, the respondent shall serve a replacement brief that does not contain the stricken material and is in all other respects the same as the brief previously filed and upload digital copies of the replacement brief, with proof of service thereof, through the digital portal on this Court's website; and it is further,
ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to extend the time to serve and file a reply brief is denied as unnecessary as the reply brief has been timely served and filed.
IANNACCI, J.P., FORD, DOWLING and LOVE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court