Powell v. Clauss

93 A.D.2d 883, 461 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17766
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 25, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 93 A.D.2d 883 (Powell v. Clauss) 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
Powell v. Clauss, 93 A.D.2d 883, 461 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, for a declaratory judgment to determine the ownership of a publishing house, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Leggett, J.), entered September 9, 1982, which, upon the respondent receiver’s motion to punish him for contempt of a prior order of the same court, adjudged him in contempt and permitted him to purge himself thereof by, inter alia, rendering an account. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. The record before this court fails to indicate whether defendant was adjudged guilty of civil or criminal contempt, and at the hearing which must be conducted, the course being pursued must be made clear. Adjudging defendant to be in criminal contempt is not warranted on this record, as there is no finding that the alleged disobedience of the prior order of the court was willful, and similarly an adjudication of civil contempt is not warranted because there is no finding that defendant’s actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair or prejudice the rights and remedies of the plaintiff (see Matter of Ross v Sherwood Diversified Servs., 88 AD2d 936). Also, defendant denied that he had failed to turn over any assets of Queens House, as was alleged by the receiver. Questions of fact were raised on that and other issues that could not be resolved without a hearing (see Crisona v Eastern Props. Improvement Corp., [884]*88427 AD2d 717, 717-718; Kamen v Kamen, 13 AD2d 985). Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Laland v. Edmond
13 A.D.3d 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Herr v. Herr
5 A.D.3d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Speirs v. Leffer
246 A.D.2d 590 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Cherico, Stix & Associates v. Abramson
235 A.D.2d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Troiano v. Ilaria
205 A.D.2d 752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
In re Terry
151 Misc. 2d 48 (NYC Family Court, 1991)
Seril v. Belnord Tenants Ass'n
139 A.D.2d 401 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
City of Poughkeepsie v. Hetey
121 A.D.2d 496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes Inc.
111 A.D.2d 28 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
In re the Estate of Drimmer
97 A.D.2d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Garry v. Garry
121 Misc. 2d 81 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 A.D.2d 883, 461 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-clauss-nyappdiv-1983.