Blutreich v. Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blutreich v. Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc.

7 A.D.3d 269, 775 N.Y.S.2d 530, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6463

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

DecidedMay 4, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 269 (Blutreich v. Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc.) 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

Blutreich v. Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc., 7 A.D.3d 269, 775 N.Y.S.2d 530, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[270]*270Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered October 23, 2003, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to hold defendant in contempt insofar as to refer the matter for a hearing on the issue of legal fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The order was clearly a contempt finding against defendant for failure to comply with a prior unconditional court order to issue privatized stock to plaintiffs (see Blutreich v Amalgamated Dwellings, 298 AD2d 185 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 501 [2003]). Accordingly, legal fees were properly recoverable by plaintiffs pursuant to Judiciary Law § 773 (see Holskin v 22 Prince St. Assoc., 178 AD2d 347 [1991]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

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

[270]*270Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered October 23, 2003, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to hold defendant in contempt insofar as to refer the matter for a hearing on the issue of legal fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The order was clearly a contempt finding against defendant for failure to comply with a prior unconditional court order to issue privatized stock to plaintiffs (see Blutreich v Amalgamated Dwellings, 298 AD2d 185 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 501 [2003]). Accordingly, legal fees were properly recoverable by plaintiffs pursuant to Judiciary Law § 773 (see Holskin v 22 Prince St. Assoc., 178 AD2d 347 [1991]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 269, 775 N.Y.S.2d 530, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blutreich-v-amalgamated-dwellings-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack