Seven Hanover Square Corp. v. Kaufman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seven Hanover Square Corp. v. Kaufman

81 A.D.2d 789, 439 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11434

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

DecidedMay 19, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 A.D.2d 789 (Seven Hanover Square Corp. v. Kaufman) 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

Seven Hanover Square Corp. v. Kaufman, 81 A.D.2d 789, 439 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 12, 1980, denying plaintiff’s motion to punish defendants for contempt of court, is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter is remanded to Special Term for an evidentiary hearing as to whether defendants are guilty of contempt of court, and whether they should be punished therefor. Appellants contend that defendants have violated the injunction contained in the Supreme Court’s judgment dated January 17, 1980, both directly and by a willful and calculated course of conduct designed to evade the provisions of that injunction. Enough has been shown so that the proceeding should not be dismissed on affidavits but an evidentiary hearing should be held. In the circumstances, the fact that defendants’ acts were to some extent done with the approval or co-operation of the borough president is not necessarily a defense. Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sandler, Ross and Silverman, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 12, 1980, denying plaintiff’s motion to punish defendants for contempt of court, is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter is remanded to Special Term for an evidentiary hearing as to whether defendants are guilty of contempt of court, and whether they should be punished therefor. Appellants contend that defendants have violated the injunction contained in the Supreme Court’s judgment dated January 17, 1980, both directly and by a willful and calculated course of conduct designed to evade the provisions of that injunction. Enough has been shown so that the proceeding should not be dismissed on affidavits but an evidentiary hearing should be held. In the circumstances, the fact that defendants’ acts were to some extent done with the approval or co-operation of the borough president is not necessarily a defense. Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sandler, Ross and Silverman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 789, 439 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seven-hanover-square-corp-v-kaufman-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack