IBE Trade Corp. v. Litvinenko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

IBE Trade Corp. v. Litvinenko

293 A.D.2d 402, 740 N.Y.S.2d 621, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4063

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

DecidedApril 25, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 402 (IBE Trade Corp. v. Litvinenko) 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

IBE Trade Corp. v. Litvinenko, 293 A.D.2d 402, 740 N.Y.S.2d 621, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4063 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a warrant of commitment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered December 6, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court and Justice adjudging defendant to be in contempt for failure to comply with an order and judgment of the same court (Joan Lobis, J.), required the New York County Sheriff to take defendant into custody and detain him until the judgment is satisfied, unanimously dismissed, with costs to plaintiff payable by defendant-appellant.

Assuming for purposes of argument only that the subject warrant of commitment is an appealable paper, defendant’s appeal must nonetheless be dismissed as moot, since the appealed warrant has been superseded by a subsequent warrant issued on February 5, 2002, and defendant has made no showing of circumstances justifying review under a recognized exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of David C., 69 NY2d 796). If defendant remains in custody, his appropriate recourse is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Appeal from a warrant of commitment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered December 6, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court and Justice adjudging defendant to be in contempt for failure to comply with an order and judgment of the same court (Joan Lobis, J.), required the New York County Sheriff to take defendant into custody and detain him until the judgment is satisfied, unanimously dismissed, with costs to plaintiff payable by defendant-appellant.

Assuming for purposes of argument only that the subject warrant of commitment is an appealable paper, defendant’s appeal must nonetheless be dismissed as moot, since the appealed warrant has been superseded by a subsequent warrant issued on February 5, 2002, and defendant has made no showing of circumstances justifying review under a recognized exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of David C., 69 NY2d 796). If defendant remains in custody, his appropriate recourse is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 402, 740 N.Y.S.2d 621, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ibe-trade-corp-v-litvinenko-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack