Frew v. Dime Savings Bank

251 A.D.2d 622, 675 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7886
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 29, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 622 (Frew v. Dime Savings Bank) 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
Frew v. Dime Savings Bank, 251 A.D.2d 622, 675 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a permanent injunction, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated September 24, 1996, which denied his motion (a) to hold the defendants Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB, and Grymes Hill Owners Corp. in contempt for the alleged violation of a temporary restraining order of the same court, dated February 1, 1995, and (b) for leave to amend his complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated September 24, 1996, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to amend his complaint is dismissed as academic; arid it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB, is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs appeal from so much of the order as denied his motion for leave to amend his complaint is dismissed as academic, as the plaintiff has since been granted leave, and has, in fact, amended his complaint (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to hold the defendants in contempt. The record does not establish with any “reasonable certainty” that the temporary restraining order dated February 1, 1995, was disobeyed while it remained in effect (see, Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583; Educational Reading Aids Corp. v Young, 175 AD2d 152).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Road Associates
66 A.D.3d 944 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 A.D.2d 622, 675 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frew-v-dime-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1998.