Cherico, Stix & Associates v. Abramson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cherico, Stix & Associates v. Abramson

235 A.D.2d 515, 653 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 681

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 515 (Cherico, Stix & Associates v. Abramson) 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

Cherico, Stix & Associates v. Abramson, 235 A.D.2d 515, 653 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover legal fees for services rendered, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered April 12, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion to hold the plaintiff in contempt.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is denied.

It is well settled that to succeed on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the moving party must show that the party [516]*516charged has violated a clear and unequivocal court order and that the violation prejudiced a right of a party to the litigation (see, McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574; Matter of Ramirez v New York State Dept. of Health, 219 AD2d 724). While the record supports a finding that the plaintiff had failed to fully comply with the court’s earlier disclosure order, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the modest additional delay in compliance impeded or prejudiced his rights. Accordingly, the court erred in granting the motion (see, Troiano v Ilaria, 205 AD2d 752; Powell v Clauss, 93 AD2d 883). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover legal fees for services rendered, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered April 12, 1996, which granted the defendant’s motion to hold the plaintiff in contempt.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is denied.

It is well settled that to succeed on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the moving party must show that the party [516]*516charged has violated a clear and unequivocal court order and that the violation prejudiced a right of a party to the litigation (see, McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574; Matter of Ramirez v New York State Dept. of Health, 219 AD2d 724). While the record supports a finding that the plaintiff had failed to fully comply with the court’s earlier disclosure order, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the modest additional delay in compliance impeded or prejudiced his rights. Accordingly, the court erred in granting the motion (see, Troiano v Ilaria, 205 AD2d 752; Powell v Clauss, 93 AD2d 883). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 515, 653 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cherico-stix-associates-v-abramson-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack