Opinion
June 30, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.).
Appellants were properly held in contempt for continuing to collect rent with knowledge of the receiver's appointment. Appellants fail to raise an issue of fact either as to whether they did not have such knowledge or were not properly served with the motion to hold them in contempt, and there is no merit to their claim that the court lacked jurisdiction to hold the managing agents in contempt (see, People ex rel. Stearns v. Marr, 181 N.Y. 463, 470-471; Power Auth. v. Moeller, 57 A.D.2d 380, 382, lv denied 42 N.Y.2d 806; European Am. Bank v. Abramoff, 201 A.D.2d 611).
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.