886 Mid-Orange Realty Corp. v. Lax

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 255 (886 Mid-Orange Realty Corp. v. Lax) 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

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).

Pincite

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]*256party 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

—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]*256party 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 255, 732 N.Y.S.2d 590, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/886-mid-orange-realty-corp-v-lax-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack