Gloveman Realty Corp. v. Jefferys, 2004-05144.
Decision Date | 23 May 2006 |
Docket Number | 2004-05144. |
Citation | 815 N.Y.S.2d 687,2006 NY Slip Op 04046,29 A.D.3d 858 |
Parties | GLOVEMAN REALTY CORP., Appellant-Respondent, v. JOHN JEFFERYS et al., Respondents-Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was to hold the defendants in contempt of court; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the defendants to the plaintiff, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
By order dated July 18, 2002, the Supreme Court directed the defendants to pay the value of their use and occupancy of the subject premises to the plaintiff during the pendency of this action. The defendants discontinued those payments sometime in 2003, purportedly on the basis of the Supreme Court's subsequent order, dated November 5, 2003, which granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action for an ejectment. Contrary to the determination made by the Supreme Court, the defendants' discontinuance of the payments was not justified.
A party is obligated to comply with a court order, however incorrect the party may consider that order to be, until that order is set aside, either by appeal or otherwise, so long as the court issuing the order had jurisdiction to do so (see Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch, 229 AD2d 533, 534-535 [1996]; Wolstencroft v Sassower, 212 AD2d 598, 599 [1995]; Busters Cleaning Corp. v Frati, 203 AD2d 409 [1994]). Contrary to the defendants' argument, and notwithstanding this Court's reinstatement of the cause of action for an ejectment (see Gloveman Realty Corp. v Jefferys, 18 AD3d 812, 813 [2005]), the order dated November 5, 2003, dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action for an ejectment neither terminated this action nor the defendants' obligation to pay use and occupancy during its pendency. Although the order dated November 5, 2003, granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action for an ejectment on the ground that the defendants were entitled to protection under the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 ( ) and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L 1974, ch 576), it did not address either the plaintiff's fourth cause of action for past due rent or use and occupancy, or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re B.H.
...the parties and the subject matter, as well as the authority to grant the specific relief awarded ( Gloveman Realty Corp. v. Jefferys, 29 A.D.3d 858, 815 N.Y.S.2d 687 [2d Dept. 2006]; Bickwid v. Deutsch, 229 A.D.2d 533, 645 N.Y.S.2d 539 [2d Dept. 1996] [a court order must be obeyed even if ......
-
Astrada v. Archer
...either by appeal or otherwise, as long as the court issuing the order had jurisdiction to issue it ( see Gloveman Realty Corp. v. Jefferys, 29 A.D.3d 858, 858-859, 815 N.Y.S.2d 687; Busters Cleaning Corp. v. Frati, 203 A.D.2d 409, 409-410, 610 N.Y.S.2d 558). Here, the record does not suppor......
-
Bernard–Cadet v. Gobin
...599; Galanos v. Galanos, 46 A.D.3d 507, 846 N.Y.S.2d 654; Biggio v. Biggio, 41 A.D.3d 753, 839 N.Y.S.2d 527; Gloveman Realty Corp. v. Jefferys, 29 A.D.3d 858, 859, 815 N.Y.S.2d 687). Here, Nessa failed to show that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was ......
-
Rose v. Levine
...Galanos, 46 A.D.3d 507, 508, 846 N.Y.S.2d 654; Biggio v. Biggio, 41 A.D.3d 753, 753–754, 839 N.Y.S.2d 527; Gloveman Realty Corp. v. Jefferys, 29 A.D.3d 858, 859, 815 N.Y.S.2d 687). Here, Levine met his burden ( see Galanos v. Galanos, 46 A.D.3d at 508, 846 N.Y.S.2d 654; Casavecchia v. Mizra......