Auerbach v. Olesh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Auerbach v. Olesh

224 A.D.2d 415, 637 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 900

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 415 (Auerbach v. Olesh) 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

Auerbach v. Olesh, 224 A.D.2d 415, 637 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding to enforce a judgment, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated December 5, 1994, which denied as academic her motion to hold the respondent, Alvin Olesh, and his former attorney, Dominic A. Barbara, in contempt of court for failing to obey a subpoena.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents.

The Supreme Court improperly denied as academic the petitioner’s motion to hold the respondent and his former attorney in contempt of court. However, the motion was properly denied (see, Educational Reading Aids Corp. v Young, 175 AD2d 152). The record reveals that the respondent and his former attorney did not disobey a subpoena when the respondent failed to appear at depositions on the September 8, 1994, and October 12, 1994, since the court had adjourned those depositions. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding to enforce a judgment, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated December 5, 1994, which denied as academic her motion to hold the respondent, Alvin Olesh, and his former attorney, Dominic A. Barbara, in contempt of court for failing to obey a subpoena.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents.

The Supreme Court improperly denied as academic the petitioner’s motion to hold the respondent and his former attorney in contempt of court. However, the motion was properly denied (see, Educational Reading Aids Corp. v Young, 175 AD2d 152). The record reveals that the respondent and his former attorney did not disobey a subpoena when the respondent failed to appear at depositions on the September 8, 1994, and October 12, 1994, since the court had adjourned those depositions. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 415, 637 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auerbach-v-olesh-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack