North Fork Bank v. Adventurers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

North Fork Bank v. Adventurers, Inc.

251 A.D.2d 261, 675 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7797

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 30, 1998·Published

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about June 6, 1997, which, in a mortgage foreclosure action, inter alia, granted the receiver’s motion to hold defendant mortgagor and nonparty managing agents in contempt, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[262]*262Appellants were properly held in contempt for continuing to collect rent with knowledge of the receiver’s appointment. Appellants fail to raise an issue of fact either as to whether they did not have such knowledge or were not properly served with the motion to hold them in contempt, and there is no merit to their claim that the court lacked jurisdiction to hold the managing agents in contempt (see, People ex rel. Stearns v Marr, 181 NY 463, 470-471; Power Auth. v Moeller, 57 AD2d 380, 382, lv denied 42 NY2d 806; European Am. Bank v Abramoff, 201 AD2d 611). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about June 6, 1997, which, in a mortgage foreclosure action, inter alia, granted the receiver’s motion to hold defendant mortgagor and nonparty managing agents in contempt, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[262]*262Appellants were properly held in contempt for continuing to collect rent with knowledge of the receiver’s appointment. Appellants fail to raise an issue of fact either as to whether they did not have such knowledge or were not properly served with the motion to hold them in contempt, and there is no merit to their claim that the court lacked jurisdiction to hold the managing agents in contempt (see, People ex rel. Stearns v Marr, 181 NY 463, 470-471; Power Auth. v Moeller, 57 AD2d 380, 382, lv denied 42 NY2d 806; European Am. Bank v Abramoff, 201 AD2d 611). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

North Fork Bank v. Adventurers, Inc., 251 A.D.2d 261, 675 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 261 (North Fork Bank v. Adventurers, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related