Pursuit Capital Management, LLC v. Claridge Associates, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pursuit Capital Management, LLC v. Claridge Associates, LLC

136 A.D.3d 529, 24 N.Y.S.3d 905

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 16, 2016·No. 243 654301/12·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about November 19, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied respondents-appellants’ (respondents’) motion to hold nonparty respondent Northeast Capital Management, LLC and related nonparties in contempt, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondents’ motion to hold Northeast in contempt of an order entered September 13, 2013, which the motion court had already determined did not apply to Northeast (see e.g. El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 28-29 [2015]; Miller v Icon Group LLC, 107 AD3d 585, 585 [1st Dept 2013]). The motion court, in denying the motion for contempt, did not effectively vacate the September 13, 2013 order.

We have considered respondents’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about November 19, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied respondents-appellants’ (respondents’) motion to hold nonparty respondent Northeast Capital Management, LLC and related nonparties in contempt, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondents’ motion to hold Northeast in contempt of an order entered September 13, 2013, which the motion court had already determined did not apply to Northeast (see e.g. El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 28-29 [2015]; Miller v Icon Group LLC, 107 AD3d 585, 585 [1st Dept 2013]). The motion court, in denying the motion for contempt, did not effectively vacate the September 13, 2013 order.

We have considered respondents’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Pursuit Capital Management, LLC v. Claridge Associates, LLC, 136 A.D.3d 529, 24 N.Y.S.3d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

136 A.D.3d 529 (Pursuit Capital Management, LLC v. Claridge Associates, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related