Ravnikar v. Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ravnikar v. Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc.

71 A.D.3d 859, 895 N.Y.S.2d 866

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 859 (Ravnikar v. Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc.) 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

Ravnikar v. Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc., 71 A.D.3d 859, 895 N.Y.S.2d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, the plaintiff and nonparty James Orozco appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated July 8, 2008, which, among other things, denied those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were pursuant to CFLR 3124 to compel the production of certain documents and pursuant to CFLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated December 5, 2008, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew his prior cross motion, and the plaintiff appeals from (3) an order of the same court dated December 29, 2008, which denied his motion to strike the defendant’s answer pursuant to CFLR 3126 and for summary judgment.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for clarification of the order dated July 8, 2008, with respect to the issue of contempt, and the appeals are held in abeyance. The Supreme Court shall file its report with all convenient speed (see Glickman v Sami, 146 AD2d 671 [1989]).

Among other things, the defendant moved to hold nonparty James Orozco in contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 756, based on Orozco’s alleged disobedience of a subpoena duces [860]*860tecum. In its order dated July 8, 2008, the Supreme Court mischaracterized the motion as one seeking to hold the plaintiffs attorney in contempt, and granted that relief, which was not requested. In addition, the Supreme Court stated that the plaintiff was held in contempt as well. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of the motion with respect to nonparty Orozco. Under the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for a clarification of the order dated July 8, 2008, with respect to the issue of contempt. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, the plaintiff and nonparty James Orozco appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated July 8, 2008, which, among other things, denied those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were pursuant to CFLR 3124 to compel the production of certain documents and pursuant to CFLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend the complaint, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated December 5, 2008, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew his prior cross motion, and the plaintiff appeals from (3) an order of the same court dated December 29, 2008, which denied his motion to strike the defendant’s answer pursuant to CFLR 3126 and for summary judgment.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for clarification of the order dated July 8, 2008, with respect to the issue of contempt, and the appeals are held in abeyance. The Supreme Court shall file its report with all convenient speed (see Glickman v Sami, 146 AD2d 671 [1989]).

Among other things, the defendant moved to hold nonparty James Orozco in contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 756, based on Orozco’s alleged disobedience of a subpoena duces [860]*860tecum. In its order dated July 8, 2008, the Supreme Court mischaracterized the motion as one seeking to hold the plaintiffs attorney in contempt, and granted that relief, which was not requested. In addition, the Supreme Court stated that the plaintiff was held in contempt as well. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of the motion with respect to nonparty Orozco. Under the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for a clarification of the order dated July 8, 2008, with respect to the issue of contempt. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 859, 895 N.Y.S.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ravnikar-v-skyline-credit-ride-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack