Gingold v. Gingold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gingold v. Gingold

48 A.D.2d 623, 367 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9607

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

DecidedMay 15, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 48 A.D.2d 623 (Gingold v. Gingold) 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

Gingold v. Gingold, 48 A.D.2d 623, 367 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County, entered April 30, 1974, adjudging respondent-appellant in contempt, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs. Order, Family Court, New York County, entered June 5, 1974, granting reargument but adhering to original decision, unanimously reverred, on the law, and motion to punish for contempt denied, without costs. The alleged contempt consisted of having failed to carry out a certain agreement, entered into under the auspices of the Family Court and pursuant to the provisions of an earlier order. The provisions of the agreement were never implemented by any order of the court and their violation cannot, therefore, provide the basis for adjudication of contempt. (See Judiciary Law, § 53, subd 3; Kolmer v Kolmer, 6 AD2d 1001.) The order granting reargument superseded the earlier order, the appeal from which becomes academic. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Tilzer and Nunez, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County, entered April 30, 1974, adjudging respondent-appellant in contempt, unanimously dismissed as academic, without costs. Order, Family Court, New York County, entered June 5, 1974, granting reargument but adhering to original decision, unanimously reverred, on the law, and motion to punish for contempt denied, without costs. The alleged contempt consisted of having failed to carry out a certain agreement, entered into under the auspices of the Family Court and pursuant to the provisions of an earlier order. The provisions of the agreement were never implemented by any order of the court and their violation cannot, therefore, provide the basis for adjudication of contempt. (See Judiciary Law, § 53, subd 3; Kolmer v Kolmer, 6 AD2d 1001.) The order granting reargument superseded the earlier order, the appeal from which becomes academic. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Tilzer and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 623, 367 N.Y.S.2d 791, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gingold-v-gingold-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack