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

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

DecidedJune 30, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 261 (North Fork Bank v. Adventurers, Inc.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 261, 675 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-fork-bank-v-adventurers-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack