Sun Electric Corp. v. Gushlaw

4 A.D.2d 1030, 168 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3587

This text of 4 A.D.2d 1030 (Sun Electric Corp. v. Gushlaw) 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
Sun Electric Corp. v. Gushlaw, 4 A.D.2d 1030, 168 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs. While it is not found that the judgment rendered' exceeded the demand for relief in the complaint, the order denying the motion to punish for contempt is affirmed in the discretion of the court. Neither the record nor the facts presented in open court, defendant appearing in person without counsel, satisfy the court that the disobedience of the judgment’s direction was willful, or that in the exercise of discretion defendant should be punished for contempt. (Nelson v. Hirsch, 264 N. Y. 316; Victor v. Turetz, 266 App. Div. 311; 8 Carmody-Wait on New York Practice, p. 357.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Botein, Valente, Bergan and Bastow, JJ.

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

Related

Nelson v. Hirsch
190 N.E. 653 (New York Court of Appeals, 1934)
Victor v. Turetz
266 A.D. 311 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 A.D.2d 1030, 168 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sun-electric-corp-v-gushlaw-nyappdiv-1957.