Bobko v. Rohrberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bobko v. Rohrberg

85 A.D.2d 675, 445 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16499

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 A.D.2d 675 (Bobko v. Rohrberg) 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

Bobko v. Rohrberg, 85 A.D.2d 675, 445 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sharpe, J.), dated May 7,1981, which, inter alia, adjudged defendants Rohrberg and Bobko and the North Shore Yacht Club to be in contempt of court, and imposed fines. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and contempt petition dismissed. The fines, if paid, are ordered remitted. The order to show cause by which this contempt application was made did not contain the notice and warning required by section 756 of the Judiciary Law (see, also, Judiciary Law, § 757). Accordingly, the court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to hold appellants in contempt (see Matter of Rappaport, 85 AD2d 697; see, also, Matter of Ellis v Ellis, 85 AD2d 602; Barreca v Barreca, 77 AD2d 793). Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sharpe, J.), dated May 7,1981, which, inter alia, adjudged defendants Rohrberg and Bobko and the North Shore Yacht Club to be in contempt of court, and imposed fines. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and contempt petition dismissed. The fines, if paid, are ordered remitted. The order to show cause by which this contempt application was made did not contain the notice and warning required by section 756 of the Judiciary Law (see, also, Judiciary Law, § 757). Accordingly, the court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to hold appellants in contempt (see Matter of Rappaport, 85 AD2d 697; see, also, Matter of Ellis v Ellis, 85 AD2d 602; Barreca v Barreca, 77 AD2d 793). Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.2d 675, 445 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobko-v-rohrberg-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack