Puro v. Puro

39 A.D.2d 873, 333 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4251
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 20, 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 873 (Puro v. Puro) 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
Puro v. Puro, 39 A.D.2d 873, 333 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4251 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 24, 1972, holding Arthur and Jacob Puro in contempt of court for having willfully disobeyed the provisions and requirements of orders entered May 22, 1970 and February 1, 1971, is modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the finding of contempt as against Jacob Puro, the motion to punish Jacob Puro for contempt is denied, and as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Although certified copies of the orders of May 22, 1970 and February 1, 1971 were never served upon appellant Arthur Puro (see CPLR 5104), we, nevertheless, are of the opinion that Arthur Puro was properly held to be in contempt of court. We reach this conclusion in the light of the entire history of this proceeding giving weight to the facts which show that the first order was entered on consent, that the attorney for Arthur Puro was served with copies of the orders; and the concession that Arthur Puro in fact had notice of both orders. However, with respect to Jacob Puro, a reversal is mandated. Not only was he not served with certified or any copies of the orders, but it was not affirmatively established as a fact that he had knowledge of the orders he is charged with violating. Concur — McGivern, J. P., McNally, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.; Kupferman, J., dissents and would affirm on the opinions of Justice Fraiman at Trial Term. [70 Misc 2d 125.]

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

Related

Village of Westhampton Beach v. Suffolk Asphalt Supply, Inc.
253 A.D.2d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Kanbar v. Quad Cinema Corp.
151 Misc. 2d 439 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Long Island Trust Co. v. Rosenberg
82 A.D.2d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
People v. Magee
102 Misc. 2d 345 (New York Supreme Court, 1979)
In re Otis A.
89 Misc. 2d 109 (NYC Family Court, 1976)
Board of Education of Half Hollow Hills Central School District v. Roseman
52 A.D.2d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Orchard Park Central School District v. Orchard Park Teachers Ass'n
50 A.D.2d 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re the Estate of Rothko
84 Misc. 2d 830 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1975)
City School District v. Schenectady Federation of Teachers
49 A.D.2d 395 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 A.D.2d 873, 333 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puro-v-puro-nyappdiv-1972.