Banks v. Markowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Banks v. Markowitz

4 A.D.2d 1022, 168 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3627

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 1022 (Banks v. Markowitz) 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

Banks v. Markowitz, 4 A.D.2d 1022, 168 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

The cross motion by respondent to dismiss the petition for legal insufficiency in an original article 78 proceeding is granted, as a matter of law. The petition, with the mandate, supports the adjudication of contempt beyond the raising of an issue. The utterances of the contemptuous obscenity and the deliberate failure to produce corporate records and documents, even after oral direction in open court, establish the willful contempt of the petitioner. It thus becomes unnecessary to reach the issue of petitioner’s refusal to answer questions or to produce individual papers. Settle order. Motion to intervene is denied, as unnecessary at this stage. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Botein, Valente, Bergan and Bastow, JJ.

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

The cross motion by respondent to dismiss the petition for legal insufficiency in an original article 78 proceeding is granted, as a matter of law. The petition, with the mandate, supports the adjudication of contempt beyond the raising of an issue. The utterances of the contemptuous obscenity and the deliberate failure to produce corporate records and documents, even after oral direction in open court, establish the willful contempt of the petitioner. It thus becomes unnecessary to reach the issue of petitioner’s refusal to answer questions or to produce individual papers. Settle order. Motion to intervene is denied, as unnecessary at this stage. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Botein, Valente, Bergan and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 1022, 168 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-v-markowitz-nyappdiv-1957.