From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pac. Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 4, 2021
199 A.D.3d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

14555 Index No. 652077/17 Case No. 2021–01010

11-04-2021

PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Kwok Ho WAN, also known as Kwok Ho, etc., Defendant–Appellant, Genever Holdings LLC, et al., Defendants.

Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP, New York (Ira Brad Matetsky of counsel), for appellant. O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York (Anton Metlitsky of counsel), for respondent.


Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP, New York (Ira Brad Matetsky of counsel), for appellant.

O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York (Anton Metlitsky of counsel), for respondent.

Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Kennedy, Mendez, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered March 17, 2021, which granted the motion of plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. to hold defendant Kwok Ho Wan in contempt of court, and imposed a fine of $500,000 for every day after May 15, 2021 in which a $27 million yacht remains outside the court's jurisdiction in violation of prior orders, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights (see El–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 29, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 [2015] ; Judiciary Law § 753 ).

Contrary to defendant's argument, the court did not commit a procedural defect under Judiciary Law § 770 because it did not issue a final order of contempt. Further, the evidence shows that the daily fine of $500,000 was intended to strongly encourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted two months to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing (see e.g. Ruesch v. Ruesch, 106 A.D.3d 976, 977, 965 N.Y.S.2d 190 [2d Dept. 2013] ). The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.


Summaries of

Pac. Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 4, 2021
199 A.D.3d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Pac. Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan

Case Details

Full title:PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Kwok…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 4, 2021

Citations

199 A.D.3d 423 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
199 A.D.3d 423

Citing Cases

People v. Trump

The court correctly found, and adequately recited, that that violation was calculated to, and actually did,…

Michael Y. v. Dawn S.

Family Court's credibility determinations are entitled to great weight, as it has the opportunity to observe…