In re Yellin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Yellin

10 A.D.2d 555, 195 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12113

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 555 (In re Yellin) 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

In re Yellin, 10 A.D.2d 555, 195 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed and the application denied, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without prejudice to the renewal of the application after the disposition of the plenary action entitled “Saul Yellin, as President, etc. v. Helen Schaefer”. The order of contempt which is the subject of this appeal was filed after this court announced, published, and communicated its decision to stay any proceedings on the original order upon which the alleged contempt is based. This was in connection with the appeal from such original order. Accordingly, the court does not pass upon some of the other questions raised upon the appeal, namely, whether the amount of the fines was authorized (Judiciary Law, §§ 751, 773), and whether there is a sufficient specification of the source of the $5,000 deposit directed to be made or of the payee of the fines imposed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Valente, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed and the application denied, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without prejudice to the renewal of the application after the disposition of the plenary action entitled “Saul Yellin, as President, etc. v. Helen Schaefer”. The order of contempt which is the subject of this appeal was filed after this court announced, published, and communicated its decision to stay any proceedings on the original order upon which the alleged contempt is based. This was in connection with the appeal from such original order. Accordingly, the court does not pass upon some of the other questions raised upon the appeal, namely, whether the amount of the fines was authorized (Judiciary Law, §§ 751, 773), and whether there is a sufficient specification of the source of the $5,000 deposit directed to be made or of the payee of the fines imposed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Valente, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 555, 195 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-yellin-nyappdiv-1960.