People ex rel. McGoldrick v. Douglas

286 A.D. 807, 141 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 7, 1955·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

It is apparent that the defendants exercised no diligence and made no earnest effort to comply with the order of the court and carry out its mandate. While defendants obtained certificates of eviction, they did not take due action thereafter to effect the evictions. They show nothing more in defense than their disposition of the property and disabling of themselves to take the required action. Without any further showing of effort to comply with the order of the court or showing of the circumstances of their disposition of the property, other than the cavalier conclusion that it was done to avert economic catastrophe, there was no defense to the application to punish for contempt. , Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion granted and the matter remitted to Special Term for the determination of punishment by fine. Settle order on notice. Concur — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ.

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

People ex rel. McGoldrick v. Douglas, 286 A.D. 807, 141 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

286 A.D. 807 (People ex rel. McGoldrick v. Douglas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

IBE Trade Corp. v. Litvinenko
288 A.D.2d 125 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Ellenberg v. Brach
88 A.D.2d 899 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Ingraham v. Maurer
74 Misc. 2d 893 (New York Supreme Court, 1973)
In re Hildreth
28 A.D.2d 290 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)