Gregori v. Ace 318 Corp.

• Decision Date: 27 February 1989
• Citation: 540 N.Y.S.2d 636,142 Misc.2d 1028
• Parties: William GREGORI, Charles Richardson, Fred Prendergass, Reginald Prestwidge, Hector Dee Vasquez, Bobbie Willis, Gladys Colon, Edith Thomas, Walter Johnson, West Galloway, Allen Womack, and Eduardo Davila, Petitioners-Respondents-Cross-Appellants, v. ACE 318 CORP., Rose Hiller, and Steven E. Hiller, Respondents-Appellants-Cross Respondents, and Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York, Respondent-Respondent-Cross-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

Page 636

540 N.Y.S.2d 636

142 Misc.2d 1028

William GREGORI, Charles Richardson, Fred Prendergass,

Reginald Prestwidge, Hector Dee Vasquez, Bobbie Willis, Gladys Colon, Edith Thomas, Walter Johnson, West Galloway, Allen Womack, and Eduardo Davila, Petitioners-Respondents-Cross-Appellants, v. ACE 318 CORP., Rose Hiller, and Steven E. Hiller, Respondents-Appellants-Cross Respondents, and Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the

City of New York, Respondent-Respondent-Cross-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

First Department.

Feb. 27, 1989.

O'Rourke & Degen (Thomas H. O'Rourke and Paula R. Schaap, New York City, of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

Wayne G. Hawley and Susan M. Cohen, New York City, for respondents-appellants.

Bruce Kramer and Janessa C. Nisley, New York City, for respondent.

Before OSTRAU, P.J., and SANDIFER and MILLER, JJ.

The above named petitioners-cross-appellants having by notice of motion dated the 6th day of December 1988 moved for an order granting reargument of the order of this Court dated November 16, 1988, or in the alternative, granting leave to appeal to the Appellate Division--First Department,

Now upon reading and filing said notice of motion and the statement of Susan M Cohen affirmed the 6th day of December 1988 and the papers annexed and the statement of Janessa C. Nisley affirmed the 14th day of December 1988 in favor of said motion, and no one appearing in opposition thereto,

IT IS ORDERED that said motion be and the same hereby is granted to the extent of granting reargument and upon reargument--since it is now apparent that the court of original jurisdiction in its May 13, 1987 order also adjudged respondents in civil contempt and imposed penalties thereon--we recall our per curiam opinion filed November 16, 1988 and substitute therefore the following:

PER CURIAM:

Order entered May 13, 1987 (Lewis R. Friedman, J.) modified vacating the portion of the order sentencing respondent Rose Hiller to a ten day term of imprisonment and by amending the order to provide that each petitioner is entitled to $250 as the statutory fine for respondents' civil contempt; as so modified, order affirmed.

The record amply supports Civil Court's findings of guilt on the contempts. We vacate the portion of the order below imposing a jail sentence upon the aged respondent Rose Hiller, taking cognizance that respondent Steven Hiller (son of Rose Hiller) has already served a jail sentence as a...