Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Road Associates, 2008-04190.
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 889 N.Y.S.2d 598,66 A.D.3d 944,2009 NY Slip Op 7786 |
| Docket Number | 2008-04190. |
| Parties | JOHN CHAMBERS et al. Plaintiffs, and PETER LEIDEL et al., Appellants, v. OLD STONE HILL ROAD ASSOCIATES et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 27 October 2009 |
PETER LEIDEL et al., Appellants,
v.
OLD STONE HILL ROAD ASSOCIATES et al., Respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to enforce restrictive covenants in a deed, the plaintiffs Peter Leidel and Pamela Leidel appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered April 2, 2008, which denied those branches of their motions which were to hold the defendants in civil contempt for their failure to comply with a provision in an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court (Cowhey, J.), entered
[66 A.D.3d 945]
November 19, 2001, directing them to remove a wireless telecommunications service facility from the encumbered property.
Ordered that the order entered April 2, 2008, is affirmed, with costs.
In an order and judgment entered November 19, 2001 (hereinafter the 2001 order), the defendants Old Stone Hill Road Associates (hereinafter Stone Hill) and New York SMSA Limited Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless (hereinafter Verizon), were directed to remove a telecommunications service facility that violated a restrictive covenant in a deed (hereinafter the original facility). The 2001 order did not set forth a specific timeline or date for the removal of the original facility. In a stipulation dated December 10, 2001, the plaintiffs John Chambers and Marsha Chambers (hereinafter together the Chambers plaintiffs), Peter Leidel and Pamela Leidel (hereinafter together the Leidel plaintiffs), and Alan Sorkin and Pamela Sorkin (hereinafter together the Sorkin plaintiffs) agreed to a stay of enforcement of the 2001 order pending determination of the defendants' appeal therefrom. This Court's decision and order dated March 17, 2003, affirming the 2001 order insofar as appealed from, was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals on February 24, 2004 (see Chambers v Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 303 AD2d 536 [2003], affd 1 NY3d 424 [2004]). The Court of Appeals noted that the Town of Pound Ridge, as amicus curiae, "urges that it would need time to relocate the antenna without interruption of service vital to public health and safety. Plaintiffs have consented to `a reasonable time period' for relocation" (Chambers v Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 1 NY3d at 435).
Approximately one month after the Court of Appeals...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwartz v. Schwartz
...punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court ( see Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 66 A.D.3d 944, 946, 889 N.Y.S.2d 598). To sustain a finding of civil contempt based upon a violation of a court order, it is913 N.Y.S.2d 317necessary to es......
-
Banks v. Stanford, 2015–12596
...109 A.D.3d 779, 780, 971 N.Y.S.2d 142 ; Penavic v. Penavic, 88 A.D.3d 671, 673, 930 N.Y.S.2d 634 ; Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 66 A.D.3d 944, 946, 889 N.Y.S.2d 598 ; Matter of King v. King, 249 A.D.2d 395, 396, 671 N.Y.S.2d 121 ). The Board endeavored to comply with the judgment ......
-
Shea v. Signal Hill Rd. LLC, 533971
...24 N.Y.S.3d 701 [2016] ; Belkhir v. Amrane–Belkhir, 128 A.D.3d 1382, 1382, 8 N.Y.S.3d 752 [2015] ; Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 66 A.D.3d 944, 946, 889 N.Y.S.2d 598 [2009], appeal dismissed 14 N.Y.3d 747, 898 N.Y.S.2d 80, 925 N.E.2d 83 [2010] ). In light of this conclusion, we als......
-
Reback v. Reback
...( Incorporated Vil. of Plandome Manor v. Ioannou, 54 A.D.3d 365, 366, 862 N.Y.S.2d 592; see Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 66 A.D.3d 944, 946, 889 N.Y.S.2d 598; Vujovic v. Vujovic, 16 A.D.3d 490, 491, 791 N.Y.S.2d 648; Kutanovski v. Kutanovski, 162 A.D.2d 662, 662, 557 N.Y.S.2d 106)......