Greenberg v. Parkridge Condominiums

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenberg v. Parkridge Condominiums

216 A.D.2d 524, 628 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7075

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

DecidedJune 26, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 524 (Greenberg v. Parkridge Condominiums) 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

Greenberg v. Parkridge Condominiums, 216 A.D.2d 524, 628 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ erection of a succah during the Jewish holiday of Succoth, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated February 16, 1994, which denied its motion to hold the plaintiffs in contempt.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, a finding of contempt against the plaintiffs is not warranted.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ erection of a succah during the Jewish holiday of Succoth, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated February 16, 1994, which denied its motion to hold the plaintiffs in contempt.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, a finding of contempt against the plaintiffs is not warranted.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 524, 628 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenberg-v-parkridge-condominiums-nyappdiv-1995.