Freed v. Best
| Decision Date | 25 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 1247/14,2017–01864 |
| Parties | Todd E. FREED, et al., Respondents, v. Barbara BEST, Appellant, Zarko Svatovic, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
175 A.D.3d 1494
109 N.Y.S.3d 388
Todd E. FREED, et al., Respondents,
v.
Barbara BEST, Appellant,
Zarko Svatovic, Defendant.
2017–01864
Index No. 1247/14
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—October 1, 2018
September 25, 2019
Barbara Best, New York, NY, appellant pro se.
Esseks, Hefter, Angel, Di Talia & Pasca, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (Anthony C. Pasca and Lisa J. Ross of counsel), for respondents.
SHERI S. ROMAN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to real property, and for injunctive relief, the defendant Barbara Best appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Martha L. Luft, J.), dated January 19, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of that defendant's motion which were, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate so much of an order of the same court (Andrew G. Tarantino, Jr., J.) dated November 23, 2016, as (a) granted those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were to hold the defendants in civil contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753 and directed that each of them pay a fine in the sum of $1,000, and (b) granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for an award of attorney's fees and expenses incurred in making the motion.
ORDERED that the order dated January 19, 2017, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying those branches of the motion of the defendant Barbara Best which were, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate so much of the order dated November 23, 2016, as (a) granted that branch of the
plaintiffs' motion which was to hold the defendant Barbara Best in civil contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753 and directed that she pay a fine in the sum of $1,000, and (b) granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for an award of attorney's fees and expenses incurred in making the motion, and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the motion of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borek v. Seidman
...[Sup Ct, Dutchess County 1987]), and that it had provided the parties with sufficient notice of the accelerated date (see Freed v Best, 175 A.D.3d 1494, 1495 [2d Dept 2019]). As explained in this court's July 25, 2022 order, the plaintiff previously had requested Sublette to provide him wit......
-
Borek v. Seidman
...[Sup Ct, Dutchess County 1987]), and that it had provided the parties with sufficient notice of the accelerated date (see Freed v Best, 175 A.D.3d 1494, 1495 [2d Dept 2019]). As explained in this court's July 25, 2022 order, the plaintiff previously had requested Sublette to provide him wit......
-
Borek v. Seidman
...1, 6 [Sup Ct, Dutchess County 1987]), as long as the court gives the parties adequate notice of the acceleration (see Freed v Best, 175 A.D.3d 1494, 1495 [2d Dept 2019]; see generally Matter of Staten Is. War Memorial Assn. v Barnes, 286 A.D. 966, 966 [2d Dept 1955]). Here, the court inform......
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Javier
...appeal lies from an order denying reargument, the appeal from the order dated December 13, 2018, must be dismissed (see Freed v. Best, 175 A.D.3d at 1494, 106 N.Y.S.3d 897 ; Ciampa Org., LLC v. Vergara, 171 A.D.3d at 696, 97 N.Y.S.3d 700 ). AUSTIN, J.P., DUFFY, IANNACCI and WOOTEN, JJ.,...