Krissler v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krissler v. King

265 A.D.2d 381, 696 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10281

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 381 (Krissler v. King) 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

Krissler v. King, 265 A.D.2d 381, 696 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10281 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion of corporate assets, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bellantoni, J.), dated June 24, 1998, which, inter alia, denied his motion to hold the plaintiff in contempt of a temporary restraining order of the same court (Jiudice, J.), dated October 8, 1993.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion because the motion did not contain the information mandated by Judiciary Law § 756 (see, Judiciary Law § 756; Matter of Dawn P., 180 AD2d 800).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion of corporate assets, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bellantoni, J.), dated June 24, 1998, which, inter alia, denied his motion to hold the plaintiff in contempt of a temporary restraining order of the same court (Jiudice, J.), dated October 8, 1993.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err in denying the appellant’s motion because the motion did not contain the information mandated by Judiciary Law § 756 (see, Judiciary Law § 756; Matter of Dawn P., 180 AD2d 800).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 381, 696 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krissler-v-king-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack