From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Papa v. 24 Caryl Avenue Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 2005
14 A.D.3d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2003-09151

January 24, 2005.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff's attorney, Charles Rudd Mackenzie, appeals, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated August 1, 2003, which, after a hearing, held him in criminal contempt of court for his willful violation of an order of the same court dated June 19, 2003, imposed upon him a term of imprisonment of 30 days with the ability to purge upon the deposit of the balance of certain fees and disbursements he received in the sum of $52,073.34 with the Westchester County Treasurer, and imposed a fine in the sum of $250.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Cozier and S. Miller, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence before the Supreme Court was sufficient to find that the appellant willfully disobeyed a lawful mandate of the court, which constituted criminal contempt ( see Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [3]; City of Poughkeepsie v. Hetey, 121 AD2d 496). There was evidence presented at the hearing to support the conclusion that, contrary to the appellant's contention, his failure to comply with the underlying order was willful ( see Ferraro v. Ferraro, 272 AD2d 510; Matter of Gerzack v. Gerzack, 87 AD2d 612; cf. Matter of Riccio v. Paquette, 284 AD2d 335; Matter of Solerwitz v. Signorelli, 183 AD2d 718).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Papa v. 24 Caryl Avenue Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 2005
14 A.D.3d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Papa v. 24 Caryl Avenue Realty Co.

Case Details

Full title:FLORIN C. PAPA, Also Known as FLORIN C. POPESCU, Plaintiff, v. 24 CARYL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 24, 2005

Citations

14 A.D.3d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
788 N.Y.S.2d 611

Citing Cases

Mtr. of Mackenzie

The respondent does not oppose the petitioner's motion, but requests that his discipline be limited to "a…

Steve Rose v. Julie

Accordingly, we modify the order to the extent indicated in order to tailor the injunction to protect the…