Bankers Trust Co. v. Braten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bankers Trust Co. v. Braten

194 A.D.2d 378, 598 N.Y.S.2d 498

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

DecidedJune 8, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 378 (Bankers Trust Co. v. Braten) 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

Bankers Trust Co. v. Braten, 194 A.D.2d 378, 598 N.Y.S.2d 498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly S. Cohen, J.), entered on or about January 14 and 28, 1993, respectively, holding nonparty appellants in [379]*379contempt and imposing fines, unanimously affirmed, with costs and a sanction of $1,500 imposed upon appellants jointly and severally, payable to plaintiff.

The standard form subpoenas served on appellants did specify the date, location, name of the law firm before whom defendants were requested to appear and time of the deposition, and we deem the statute to have been complied with. It is noteworthy that appellants did not move to quash the subpoenas and only raised this flaw four months after first being held in contempt.

As appellants offer no other excuse for their failure to appear at the deposition, they were properly held in contempt. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly S. Cohen, J.), entered on or about January 14 and 28, 1993, respectively, holding nonparty appellants in [379]*379contempt and imposing fines, unanimously affirmed, with costs and a sanction of $1,500 imposed upon appellants jointly and severally, payable to plaintiff.

The standard form subpoenas served on appellants did specify the date, location, name of the law firm before whom defendants were requested to appear and time of the deposition, and we deem the statute to have been complied with. It is noteworthy that appellants did not move to quash the subpoenas and only raised this flaw four months after first being held in contempt.

As appellants offer no other excuse for their failure to appear at the deposition, they were properly held in contempt. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 378, 598 N.Y.S.2d 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bankers-trust-co-v-braten-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack