Willer v. Dachenhausen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Willer v. Dachenhausen

83 A.D.2d 924, 443 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15367

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.2d 924 (Willer v. Dachenhausen) 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

Willer v. Dachenhausen, 83 A.D.2d 924, 443 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Application pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dachenhausen, J.), entered on or about July 13, 1981, adjudging petitioner guilty of criminal contempt for willful disobedience in failing to appear to continue his testimony, and to vacate the warrant of commitment, unanimously granted, without costs and without disbursements, and the order and warrant vacated. In all of the circumstances presented, we find an insufficient basis upon which to conclude that petitioner’s failure to appear, as directed, was willful. In light of this determination we need not consider petitioner’s other contentions. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Ross and Carro, JJ.

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

Application pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dachenhausen, J.), entered on or about July 13, 1981, adjudging petitioner guilty of criminal contempt for willful disobedience in failing to appear to continue his testimony, and to vacate the warrant of commitment, unanimously granted, without costs and without disbursements, and the order and warrant vacated. In all of the circumstances presented, we find an insufficient basis upon which to conclude that petitioner’s failure to appear, as directed, was willful. In light of this determination we need not consider petitioner’s other contentions. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Ross and Carro, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 924, 443 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willer-v-dachenhausen-nyappdiv-1981.