Grune v. Grenis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grune v. Grenis

171 A.D.2d 1070, 569 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6819

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 1070 (Grune v. Grenis) 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

Grune v. Grenis, 171 A.D.2d 1070, 569 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject petitioner’s argument that Supreme Court, Oneida County, lacked [1071]*1071subject matter jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s motion to hold respondents in contempt for failure to comply with an order of Supreme Court, Dutchess County. Supreme Court is a court possessing State-wide jurisdiction and is competent to entertain a motion no matter where the underlying action is pending. The proper venue for the return of the motion would have been in Dutchess County; nevertheless, any objection petitioner may have had to the court’s hearing of the motion was waived because he did not timely object (see, Cwick v City of Rochester, 54 AD2d 1078, 1079). We have examined the other issues raised by petitioner and we find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — Article 78.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject petitioner’s argument that Supreme Court, Oneida County, lacked [1071]*1071subject matter jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s motion to hold respondents in contempt for failure to comply with an order of Supreme Court, Dutchess County. Supreme Court is a court possessing State-wide jurisdiction and is competent to entertain a motion no matter where the underlying action is pending. The proper venue for the return of the motion would have been in Dutchess County; nevertheless, any objection petitioner may have had to the court’s hearing of the motion was waived because he did not timely object (see, Cwick v City of Rochester, 54 AD2d 1078, 1079). We have examined the other issues raised by petitioner and we find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — Article 78.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 1070, 569 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grune-v-grenis-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack