Felcher v. Schiller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Felcher v. Schiller

269 A.D.2d 490, 703 N.Y.S.2d 733, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1973

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 490 (Felcher v. Schiller) 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

Felcher v. Schiller, 269 A.D.2d 490, 703 N.Y.S.2d 733, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 52 to enforce a money judgment, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated March 19, 1999, as denied his motion to adjudge the defendant in contempt of court for his willful violation of a restraining notice issued pursuant to CPLR 5222, and granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was, in effect, to vacate the restraining notice.

Ordered that order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs restraining notice failed to comply with the requirements set forth in CPLR 5222 (a). Accordingly, the [491]*491Supreme Court properly denied his motion to adjudge the defendant in contempt of court for his willful violation of the notice.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 52 to enforce a money judgment, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated March 19, 1999, as denied his motion to adjudge the defendant in contempt of court for his willful violation of a restraining notice issued pursuant to CPLR 5222, and granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was, in effect, to vacate the restraining notice.

Ordered that order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs restraining notice failed to comply with the requirements set forth in CPLR 5222 (a). Accordingly, the [491]*491Supreme Court properly denied his motion to adjudge the defendant in contempt of court for his willful violation of the notice.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 490, 703 N.Y.S.2d 733, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felcher-v-schiller-nyappdiv-2000.