886 Mid-Orange Realty Corp. v. Lax

288 A.D.2d 255, 732 N.Y.S.2d 590, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11013
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to determine title to real property and to set aside a deed, the plaintiffs and the third-party defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated October 3, 2000, which denied their motion, in effect, for summary judgment based upon the defendants’ failure to comply with a prior order of the same court.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

By order dated April 26, 2000, the Supreme Court, Orange County, inter alia, granted the motion of the plaintiffs and third-party defendants to compel the respondents to arbitrate their claims before a religious tribunal pursuant to the parties’ stipulation (see, 886 Mid-Orange Realty Corp. v Lax, 288 AD2d 255 [decided herewith]). The respondents repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s order. The plaintiffs and the third-[256] party defendants then moved for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissing the third-party complaint based on the failure to comply. The Supreme Court properly denied the motion. Summary judgment is not an appropriate remedy for contempt (see, Judiciary Law § 756). Furthermore, the motion papers failed to include the statutory warnings required for a contempt motion (see, Judiciary Law § 756). McGinity, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

886 Mid-Orange Realty Corp. v. Lax, 288 A.D.2d 255, 732 N.Y.S.2d 590, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

288 A.D.2d 255 (886 Mid-Orange Realty Corp. v. Lax) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hottle v. BDO Seidman, LLP
846 A.2d 862 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2004)