Snyder v. Olanoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Snyder v. Olanoff

169 A.D.2d 570

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 570 (Snyder v. Olanoff) 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

Snyder v. Olanoff, 169 A.D.2d 570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered October 25, 1989, which, inter alia, found defendant Friedlander in civil contempt and directed her arrest and commitment to jail, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant Friedlander, despite two prior orders of the Supreme Court, refused to convey shares of stock and the appurtenant proprietary lease, as directed.

Now, on appeal, Friedlander asserts for the first time that the prior orders were never served upon her. We see no reason to entertain this argument on appellate review. In any event, the record reveals that Friedlander had knowledge of and was in fact personally served with the orders.

The remaining arguments are without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered October 25, 1989, which, inter alia, found defendant Friedlander in civil contempt and directed her arrest and commitment to jail, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant Friedlander, despite two prior orders of the Supreme Court, refused to convey shares of stock and the appurtenant proprietary lease, as directed.

Now, on appeal, Friedlander asserts for the first time that the prior orders were never served upon her. We see no reason to entertain this argument on appellate review. In any event, the record reveals that Friedlander had knowledge of and was in fact personally served with the orders.

The remaining arguments are without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-v-olanoff-nyappdiv-1991.