Usina Costa Pinto, S. A. v. Sanco Sav Co.

174 A.D.2d 487
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 18, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 487 (Usina Costa Pinto, S. A. v. Sanco Sav Co.) 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
Usina Costa Pinto, S. A. v. Sanco Sav Co., 174 A.D.2d 487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered August 23, 1990, which granted plaintiff’s motion to punish The Chase Manhattan Bank and Cornelius J. Lyons, Esq. for civil and criminal contempt for having willfully disobeyed a prior order of the court, dated October 23, 1989, and fined them $1,000 each for criminal contempt and $250 each plus the amount of plaintiff’s costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, for civil contempt, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the finding of contempt is vacated and the matter remanded to the IAS court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the [488]*488alleged contemners’ willfulness in disobeying the prior order, without costs.

It is well established that contempt is a drastic remedy which should not be granted absent a clear right to such relief. Whether to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as is apparently the case with criminal contempt or " 'with reasonable certainty’ ” in the case of civil contempt (N. A. Dev. Co. v Jones, 99 AD2d 238, 242), where, as here, there are factual disputes regarding the alleged contemnors’ willfulness in disobeying the prior order, which cannot be resolved on the papers, a hearing must be held before a party or its attorney can be adjudicated in contempt. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

FR v. AR
2025 NY Slip Op 50549(U) (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2025)
LKF v. MTF
2024 NY Slip Op 24312 (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2024)
N.J.L v. C.A.L
2024 NY Slip Op 50140(U) (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2024)
Triumph Enters. Corp. v. Webster Auto Repair & Serv. Ctr. Inc.
189 N.Y.S.3d 109 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Simens v. Darwish
100 A.D.3d 527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
JK v. EK
30 Misc. 3d 194 (New York Supreme Court, 2010)
Coronet Capital Co. v. Spodek
202 A.D.2d 20 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Babiarz v. Gasparini
198 A.D.2d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 A.D.2d 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/usina-costa-pinto-s-a-v-sanco-sav-co-nyappdiv-1991.