Pace Advertising Agency, Inc. v. Manhattan Pacific Management Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pace Advertising Agency, Inc. v. Manhattan Pacific Management Co.

237 A.D.2d 131, 654 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2199

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 6, 1997·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered June 21, 1996, which, in a turnover proceeding, granted petitioner judgment creditor’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee, adjudged respondent garnishee in civil contempt, fined respondent $57,478.16, together with plaintiff’s costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees, and permitted respondent to purge its contempt by paying such fine and fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the Special Referee’s rejection of most of the offsets claimed by respondent and finding that respondent owes the judgment debtor $57,478.16. The documentary evidence, and indeed respondent’s own concession that its seven prior accountings were inaccurate, constitute a clear showing of respondent’s disobedience of the court’s prior orders to provide proper accountings, prejudicing petitioner and warranting a finding of contempt. The court properly refused to permit respondent to introduce "additional offsets” that had not been included in any of the seven prior accountings after the hearing had already begun. The $57,478.16 found owing, plus petitioner’s costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, [132] is an "actual loss or injury” sustained by petitioner for which respondent was properly fined (Judiciary Law § 773; Gordon v Janover, 121 AD2d 599). We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered June 21, 1996, which, in a turnover proceeding, granted petitioner judgment creditor’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee, adjudged respondent garnishee in civil contempt, fined respondent $57,478.16, together with plaintiff’s costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees, and permitted respondent to purge its contempt by paying such fine and fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the Special Referee’s rejection of most of the offsets claimed by respondent and finding that respondent owes the judgment debtor $57,478.16. The documentary evidence, and indeed respondent’s own concession that its seven prior accountings were inaccurate, constitute a clear showing of respondent’s disobedience of the court’s prior orders to provide proper accountings, prejudicing petitioner and warranting a finding of contempt. The court properly refused to permit respondent to introduce "additional offsets” that had not been included in any of the seven prior accountings after the hearing had already begun. The $57,478.16 found owing, plus petitioner’s costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, [132] is an "actual loss or injury” sustained by petitioner for which respondent was properly fined (Judiciary Law § 773; Gordon v Janover, 121 AD2d 599). We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Pace Advertising Agency, Inc. v. Manhattan Pacific Management Co., 237 A.D.2d 131, 654 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

237 A.D.2d 131 (Pace Advertising Agency, Inc. v. Manhattan Pacific Management Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related