Trust v. Capalino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trust v. Capalino

104 A.D.2d 802, 480 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20297

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 1, 1984·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

— Motion by petitioner for an order (1) setting aside a public auction sale of the leasehold of the subject property, which public auction was held by respondent on August 15, 1984, and (2) adjudicating respondent and its agents in contempt of court for holding the auction in violation of a stay that had been granted by this court pending petitioner’s appeal in the above-entitled matter.

Motion granted to the extent of setting aside the public auction held by respondent on August 15, 1984; motion insofar as it is to adjudicate respondent in contempt denied.

The August 15,1984 public auction sale of the leasehold of the subject property was in violation of the stay pending appeal that was in effect at that time. Accordingly, the sale should be set aside. We deny the motion, however, insofar as it seeks to hold respondent in contempt because we find that respondent’s violation of the stay was not willful. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

— Motion by petitioner for an order (1) setting aside a public auction sale of the leasehold of the subject property, which public auction was held by respondent on August 15, 1984, and (2) adjudicating respondent and its agents in contempt of court for holding the auction in violation of a stay that had been granted by this court pending petitioner’s appeal in the above-entitled matter.

Motion granted to the extent of setting aside the public auction held by respondent on August 15, 1984; motion insofar as it is to adjudicate respondent in contempt denied.

The August 15,1984 public auction sale of the leasehold of the subject property was in violation of the stay pending appeal that was in effect at that time. Accordingly, the sale should be set aside. We deny the motion, however, insofar as it seeks to hold respondent in contempt because we find that respondent’s violation of the stay was not willful. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

Trust v. Capalino, 104 A.D.2d 802, 480 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

104 A.D.2d 802 (Trust v. Capalino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related