Justicebacker Inc. v. Abeles

2025 NY Slip Op 06387

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 650374/17; Appeal No. 5213; Case No. 2024-04398
• Status: Published

Opinion

Justicebacker Inc. v Abeles (2025 NY Slip Op 06387)

Justicebacker Inc. v Abeles

2025 NY Slip Op 06387

Decided on November 20, 2025

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: November 20, 2025
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Shulman, Rosado, Hagler, JJ.

Index No. 650374/17|Appeal No. 5213|Case No. 2024-04398|

[*1]Justicebacker Inc., etc., et al., Plaintiffs,

v

Alejandro Abeles, Defendant-Respondent, Michael B. Wolk, Nonparty-Appellant.

Law Offices of Michael B. Wolk, P.C., New York (Michael B. Wolk of counsel), for appellant.

Alejandro Abeles, respondent pro se.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David C. Cohen, J.), entered July 11, 2024, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied appellant Michael B. Wolk's motion to vacate the court's December 22, 2020, December 1, 2021, and December 21, 2023 orders and granted defendant's motion for sanctions against appellant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to appellant's contention, the court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over him. Appellant remained the escrow agent holding the settlement funds that the court had determined were owed to defendant. Thus, notwithstanding the 2017 stipulation of discontinuance, the court was permitted to issue the orders in this action compelling the turnover of the escrowed funds to defendant, holding appellant in contempt for failure to comply with the turnover order, and sanctioning him for failing to purge his contempt by dispersing the escrowed funds to defendant (see R.A.J.N. Corp. v Mizrachi , 190 AD2d 641, 642 [1st Dept 1993]; 88 Blue Corp. v Staten Bldrs. Co. , 176 AD2d 536, 538 [1st Dept 1991]). Appellant fails to show that the court's contempt and sanctions orders were otherwise erroneous, improper, or unreasonable. We find appellant's remaining arguments unavailing.

We decline to order additional sanctions against appellant.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: November 20, 2025