Allison v. Delinko

85 A.D.2d 564, 445 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16356
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 17, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 A.D.2d 564 (Allison v. Delinko) 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
Allison v. Delinko, 85 A.D.2d 564, 445 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tyler, J.), entered February 18, 1981, adjudging plaintiff Allison and one Wendy Chase in contempt, is unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent that the adjudication of Wendy Chase in contempt is reversed, and the last decretal paragraph of the order is stricken, and all other provisions holding Wendy Chase in contempt are stricken, and the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs. The employee Wendy Chase is not a party to the action. The only relevant order in which she is mentioned is Justice Stecher’s order of June 12, 1979, which remained in effect only until the then-pending motion was determined by Justice Riccobono’s order entered July 31, 1979. The only surviving order, Justice Riccobono’s order, makes no reference whatever to Wendy Chase and she was thus not fairly warned that the order bound her in any way. The acts constituting the contempt charged to Wendy Chase apparently took place in October, 1979. As to plaintiff Holly Allison, the situation is somewhat different. Justice Riccobono’s order is clearly addressed to her, i.e., “plaintiff is directed”, etc. There are various irregularities with respect to that order, e.g., although it is, in effect, a temporary injunction, no bond is provided for, and the injunctive provision was made on a motion which apparently did [565]*565not ask for a preliminary injunction. However, the order was not directly attacked, and, until reversed or vacated, it hound the plaintiff. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Ross, Silverman and Fein, JJ.

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

Related

In re Delinko
85 A.D.2d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 A.D.2d 564, 445 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allison-v-delinko-nyappdiv-1981.