Midlarsky v. D'Urso
| Decision Date | 05 October 1987 |
| Citation | 133 A.D.2d 616,519 N.Y.S.2d 724 |
| Parties | Arnold MIDLARSKY, etc., Appellant, v. Arthur J. D'URSO, Respondent Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ferber, Greilsheimer, Chan & Essner, New York City (Robert N. Chan and Robert M. Kaplan, of counsel), for appellant.
Freedman, Weisbein, Samuelson & Rieger, P.C., Garden City (Martin Shaw, of counsel), for respondent third-party plaintiff.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, NIEHOFF and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balletta, J.), dated November 21, 1986, as permitted the defendant Arthur D'Urso to purge himself of contempt by granting to the plaintiff a security interest in certain real property, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated February 18, 1987, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The court is vested with broad discretion in determining appropriate conditions upon which a contemnor may purge the contempt (see, Matter of Nestler v. Nestler, 125 A.D.2d 836, 837, 510 N.Y.S.2d 32; Busch v. Berg, 52 A.D.2d 1082, 1082-1083, 384 N.Y.S.2d 301; Matter of Storm, 28 A.D.2d 290, 292-293, 284 N.Y.S.2d 755). In this case, the court adjudicated the defendant Arthur D'Urso in contempt for failing to comply with an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered June 18, 1986, directing him to deposit cash into a brokerage account. Inasmuch as the purpose of the order was to provide security for the underlying action, the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the defendant Arthur D'Urso to purge the contempt by providing the plaintiff with alternative security.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Moroun
...with broad discretion to determine the appropriate conditions through which the contemnor may purge the contempt. Midlarsky v. D'Urso, 133 A.D.2d 616, 519 N.Y.S.2d 724 (1987). The appellate court reviews the denial of a motion to purge a contempt order for an abuse of discretion. Consolidat......
-
Odimgbe v. Dockery
...the Court has broad powers to permit the parties to purge themselves of contempt under the Judiciary Law. Midlarsky v. D'Urso, 133 A.D.2d 616, 519 N.Y.S.2d 724 (2d Dept.1987); Nestler v. Nestler, 125 A.D.2d 836, 510 N.Y.S.2d 32 (3d Upon an application for a contempt adjudication, the Court ......
-
Department of Housing Preservation and Development of City of New York v. Park Properties Development Associates
...did appear and testified before the grand jury, thereby purging himself of the contempt. More recently, in Midlarsky v. D'Urso, 133 A.D.2d 616, 519 N.Y.S.2d 724 (2d Dept.1987), the Court "The court is vested with broad discretion in determining appropriate conditions upon which a contemnor ......
-
In re Andrew B.
...burden. Once Family Court found Petitioner in contempt it set terms for Petitioner to purge the finding (see Midlarsky v. D'Urso, 133 A.D.2d 616, 519 N.Y.S.2d 724 [3d Dept.1987] ; see also Bell v. Bell, 181 A.D.2d 978, 581 N.Y.S.2d 470 [3d Dept.1992] [a court has broad discretion in determi......