Bennett Bros. v. Floyd Bennett Farmers Market Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bennett Bros. v. Floyd Bennett Farmers Market Corp.

18 A.D.2d 905, 238 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4318

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 905 (Bennett Bros. v. Floyd Bennett Farmers Market Corp.) 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

Bennett Bros. v. Floyd Bennett Farmers Market Corp., 18 A.D.2d 905, 238 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on September 7, 1962, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. No opinion. Order, entered on September 20, 1962, granting plaintiff’s motion to punish defendants for contempt of court, unanimously modified, in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the fine to $100 and the costs and expenses to $250, and is otherwise affirmed, without costs. In the light of the nature of the acts constituting the contempt and the other pertinent circumstances, we conclude that the fine imposed and the costs assessed were excessive and should be reduced. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on September 7, 1962, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. No opinion. Order, entered on September 20, 1962, granting plaintiff’s motion to punish defendants for contempt of court, unanimously modified, in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the fine to $100 and the costs and expenses to $250, and is otherwise affirmed, without costs. In the light of the nature of the acts constituting the contempt and the other pertinent circumstances, we conclude that the fine imposed and the costs assessed were excessive and should be reduced. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 905, 238 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-bros-v-floyd-bennett-farmers-market-corp-nyappdiv-1963.