S. Leto Construction Corp. v. Wentworth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

S. Leto Construction Corp. v. Wentworth

11 A.D.2d 860, 203 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8540

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 860 (S. Leto Construction Corp. v. Wentworth) 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

S. Leto Construction Corp. v. Wentworth, 11 A.D.2d 860, 203 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner appeals from a denial of motion to punish respondents for contempt of court. The proceedings arose as the result of an auction sale, pursuant to an order of the court, where it was claimed respondents made a bid which they thereafter failed to complete, necessitating a new sale for a lesser amount. Section 753 of the Judiciary Law defines the power of the court to punish for civil contempt. Appellant claims that the conduct of the respondent bidders herein was such as to be in total disregard of an order of the court and contumacious. Special Term made a finding that the proof demonstrated that the respondents’ action was the result of a misunderstanding. We are satisfied that there is no clear showing of contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents sufficient to invoke the drastic remedy herein sought. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds,' JJ.

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

Petitioner appeals from a denial of motion to punish respondents for contempt of court. The proceedings arose as the result of an auction sale, pursuant to an order of the court, where it was claimed respondents made a bid which they thereafter failed to complete, necessitating a new sale for a lesser amount. Section 753 of the Judiciary Law defines the power of the court to punish for civil contempt. Appellant claims that the conduct of the respondent bidders herein was such as to be in total disregard of an order of the court and contumacious. Special Term made a finding that the proof demonstrated that the respondents’ action was the result of a misunderstanding. We are satisfied that there is no clear showing of contumacious conduct on the part of the respondents sufficient to invoke the drastic remedy herein sought. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds,' JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 860, 203 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-leto-construction-corp-v-wentworth-nyappdiv-1960.