Papa v. 24 Caryl Avenue Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Papa v. 24 Caryl Avenue Realty Co.

14 A.D.3d 600, 788 N.Y.S.2d 611, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 536

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 14 A.D.3d 600 (Papa v. 24 Caryl Avenue Realty Co.) 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

Papa v. 24 Caryl Avenue Realty Co., 14 A.D.3d 600, 788 N.Y.S.2d 611, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiffs attorney, Charles Rudd Mackenzie, appeals, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated August 1, 2003, which, after a hearing, held him in criminal contempt of court for his willful violation of an order of the same court dated June 19, 2003, imposed upon him a term of imprisonment of 30 days with the ability to purge upon the deposit of the balance of certain fees and disbursements he received in the sum of $52,073.34 with the Westchester County Treasurer, and imposed a fine in the sum of $250.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence before the Supreme Court was sufficient to find that the appellant willfully disobeyed a lawful mandate of the court, which constituted criminal contempt (see Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [3]; City of Poughkeepsie v Hetey, 121 AD2d 496 [1986]). There was evidence presented at the hearing to support the conclusion that, contrary to the appellant’s contention, his failure to comply with the underlying order was willful (see Ferraro v Ferraro, 272 AD2d 510 [2000]; Matter of Gerzack v Gerzack, 87 AD2d 612 [1982]; cf. Matter of Riccio v Paquette, 284 AD2d 335 [2001]; Matter of Solerwitz v Signorelli, 183 AD2d 718 [1992]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Cozier and S. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiffs attorney, Charles Rudd Mackenzie, appeals, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated August 1, 2003, which, after a hearing, held him in criminal contempt of court for his willful violation of an order of the same court dated June 19, 2003, imposed upon him a term of imprisonment of 30 days with the ability to purge upon the deposit of the balance of certain fees and disbursements he received in the sum of $52,073.34 with the Westchester County Treasurer, and imposed a fine in the sum of $250.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence before the Supreme Court was sufficient to find that the appellant willfully disobeyed a lawful mandate of the court, which constituted criminal contempt (see Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [3]; City of Poughkeepsie v Hetey, 121 AD2d 496 [1986]). There was evidence presented at the hearing to support the conclusion that, contrary to the appellant’s contention, his failure to comply with the underlying order was willful (see Ferraro v Ferraro, 272 AD2d 510 [2000]; Matter of Gerzack v Gerzack, 87 AD2d 612 [1982]; cf. Matter of Riccio v Paquette, 284 AD2d 335 [2001]; Matter of Solerwitz v Signorelli, 183 AD2d 718 [1992]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Cozier and S. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 600, 788 N.Y.S.2d 611, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/papa-v-24-caryl-avenue-realty-co-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack