Pinto v. Pinto
| Decision Date | 06 May 1986 |
| Citation | 501 N.Y.S.2d 835,120 A.D.2d 337 |
| Parties | Michael Peter PINTO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Edwina PINTO a/k/a Edwina Vallejo, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
E.P. Cimini, Jr., for plaintiff-respondent.
S.G. Reddan, for defendant-appellant.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and SULLIVAN, CARRO, ROSENBERGER and ELLERIN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Levy, J.), entered April 16, 1985, which granted plaintiff's motion to punish defendant for contempt and denied defendant's motion for renewal of plaintiff's motion for an order holding defendant in contempt and vacating a prior order of said court which had held defendant in contempt unless she permitted the appraisal of her premises in question by Paul Schnitta, unanimously reversed on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, defendant's renewal motion granted and, upon renewal the finding of contempt is vacated, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court, Bronx County for a hearing regarding the selection of the third appraiser to determine the fair market value of the premises, without costs.
The underlying facts are undisputed. The parties were divorced by judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County on March 6, 1980. The defendant wife was awarded exclusive possession of the marital residence at 133 Travers Avenue, Yonkers, New York. The judgment provided for the sale of the house upon certain contingencies, one of which was the remarriage of the defendant. The judgment further provided
Upon defendant's remarriage, the parties invoked these provisions of the divorce judgment. Defendant hired a broker who, in November 1982, appraised the house at a value between $98,000 and $110,000, while plaintiff's broker appraised the property in January 1983 at $130,000. At this juncture a third appraiser became necessary and it is the selection of such third appraiser that gives rise to the instant controversy.
Plaintiff moved to hold defendant in contempt, submitting his attorney's affirmation as well as his own affidavit, each alleging that since the two original appraisers could not agree on the valuation of the house, they had selected Mr. Paul Schnitta in the summer of 1983 to be the third appraiser, but that defendant refused him access to the house. Defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C.M. v. E.M.
... ... A ... contempt citation is a drastic remedy which should not be ... granted absent a clear right to such relief. Pinto v ... Pinto , 120 A.D.2d 337 (1st Dept. 1986); Usina Costa ... Pinto SA v. Sanco Sav Co. Ltd. , 174 A.D.2d 487 (1st ... Dept. 1991); See also ... ...
-
Henry v. Peguero
...( Lambert v. Williams, 218 A.D.2d 618, 621, 631 N.Y.S.2d 31 [1995] ), such treatment is available only in a "rare case" ( Pinto v. Pinto, 120 A.D.2d 337, 338, 501 N.Y.S.2d 835 [1986] ), such as where liberality is warranted as a matter of judicial policy ( see Wattson v. TMC Holdings Corp.,......
-
Slomin v. Skaarland Const. Corp.
...I find unavailing her reliance upon Second Department cases (cf., Hantz v. Fishman, 155 A.D.2d 415, 547 N.Y.S.2d 350; Pinto v. Pinto, 120 A.D.2d 337, 501 N.Y.S.2d 835; Rodney v. New York Pyrotechnic Prods. Co., 112 A.D.2d 410, 492 N.Y.S.2d 69) and adhere to the explicit standard of this cou......
-
L.K. Comstock & Co., Inc. v. Koch
...(see Oremland v. Miller Minutemen Construction Corp., 133 A.D.2d 816, 818, 520 N.Y.S.2d 397 [2d Dept.1987]; Pinto v. Pinto, 120 A.D.2d 337, 338, 501 N.Y.S.2d 835 [1st Dept.1986]; Levinger v. General Motors Corporation, 122 A.D.2d 419, 420, 504 N.Y.S.2d 819 [3d According to the City, HUD app......