Kreizer v. Kitaoka

City of New York Municipal Court

Kreizer v. Kitaoka

35 Misc. 842

City of New York Municipal Court·Decided May 15, 1901·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from must he affirmed. The record shows willful contempt for the court’s mandate. The defendant disposed of his property contrary to the injunction contained in the order for his examination, thereby causing plaintiff’s damage in, at least, the sum of $250.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J., Delehanty and Schuchman, JJ.

Order affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from must he affirmed. The record shows willful contempt for the court’s mandate. The defendant disposed of his property contrary to the injunction contained in the order for his examination, thereby causing plaintiff’s damage in, at least, the sum of $250.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J., Delehanty and Schuchman, JJ.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Kreizer v. Kitaoka, 35 Misc. 842 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1901).

Pincite

35 Misc. 842 (Kreizer v. Kitaoka) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.