Reyes v. Sequeira

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reyes v. Sequeira

15 A.D.3d 162, 788 N.Y.S.2d 600, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 830

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 162 (Reyes v. Sequeira) 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

Reyes v. Sequeira, 15 A.D.3d 162, 788 N.Y.S.2d 600, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered July 1, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion to hold defendant and appellant in contempt and directed appellant to pay plaintiffs attorney $17,571.21 pursuant to 22 NYCRR subpart 130-1, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 15, 2004, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The basis for plaintiffs contempt motion was appellant’s institution of a proceeding, despite a preliminary injunction issued in this action prohibiting defendant from proceeding unilaterally on behalf of the corporate owner of 424 East 138th Street, in which separate proceeding defendant sought a winding-up of the corporation’s affairs pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1008. However, the basis for the court’s contempt finding was that appellant had commenced the special proceeding without indicating the existence of the instant action. This was incorrect. The request for judicial intervention form filed with the order to show cause and petition indicated, in the section entitled “Related Cases,” the existence of the instant action. Accordingly, we vacate the sanction as based upon an erroneous finding. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered July 1, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion to hold defendant and appellant in contempt and directed appellant to pay plaintiffs attorney $17,571.21 pursuant to 22 NYCRR subpart 130-1, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 15, 2004, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The basis for plaintiffs contempt motion was appellant’s institution of a proceeding, despite a preliminary injunction issued in this action prohibiting defendant from proceeding unilaterally on behalf of the corporate owner of 424 East 138th Street, in which separate proceeding defendant sought a winding-up of the corporation’s affairs pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1008. However, the basis for the court’s contempt finding was that appellant had commenced the special proceeding without indicating the existence of the instant action. This was incorrect. The request for judicial intervention form filed with the order to show cause and petition indicated, in the section entitled “Related Cases,” the existence of the instant action. Accordingly, we vacate the sanction as based upon an erroneous finding. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 162, 788 N.Y.S.2d 600, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reyes-v-sequeira-nyappdiv-2005.