Board of Managers v. Frazier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Managers v. Frazier

73 A.D.2d 563, 422 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14347

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.2d 563 (Board of Managers v. Frazier) 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

Board of Managers v. Frazier, 73 A.D.2d 563, 422 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 12, 1979, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, affirmed, without costs. We agree with Special Term that defendant Frazier violated Justice Nadel’s order, entered March 28, 1979, and the by-laws by leasing and permitting the occupancy of his condominium unit without giving the plaintiff board the right of first refusal. For this reason, Special Term correctly granted the preliminary injunction. However, since the plaintiff board did not make a clear showing that the so-called "common charges” were properly entered against defendant Frazier’s unit, we would not have granted an injunction on that ground. We also take this opportunity to correct a factual misstate[564]*564ment in the memorandum decision at Special Term. The plaintiff board never alleged in its papers that defendant Frazier was permitting defendants Bressan and Young to use the condominium unit for purposes of prostitution. Because there is some indication in the record that defendant Frazier believed he was proceeding within the parameters of Justice Nadel’s order, it cannot be definitively concluded that he deliberately disobeyed that order. Hence, the branch of the motion to punish for contempt was appropriately denied. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Lane, Lupiano and Lynch, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 12, 1979, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, affirmed, without costs. We agree with Special Term that defendant Frazier violated Justice Nadel’s order, entered March 28, 1979, and the by-laws by leasing and permitting the occupancy of his condominium unit without giving the plaintiff board the right of first refusal. For this reason, Special Term correctly granted the preliminary injunction. However, since the plaintiff board did not make a clear showing that the so-called "common charges” were properly entered against defendant Frazier’s unit, we would not have granted an injunction on that ground. We also take this opportunity to correct a factual misstate[564]*564ment in the memorandum decision at Special Term. The plaintiff board never alleged in its papers that defendant Frazier was permitting defendants Bressan and Young to use the condominium unit for purposes of prostitution. Because there is some indication in the record that defendant Frazier believed he was proceeding within the parameters of Justice Nadel’s order, it cannot be definitively concluded that he deliberately disobeyed that order. Hence, the branch of the motion to punish for contempt was appropriately denied. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Lane, Lupiano and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 563, 422 N.Y.S.2d 709, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-managers-v-frazier-nyappdiv-1979.