Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed an order holding the appellants in contempt for violating prior orders concerning notice and escrow requirements related to the sale or encumbrance of a Manhattan property. The court also upheld the restraints securing a potential arbitration award and denied the appellants’ request for damages under CPLR 6312(b).
Holdings
- The restraints and escrow requirements were warranted under the circumstances, did not unreasonably interfere with the property, and were properly maintained.
- Appellants were not entitled to damages under CPLR 6312(b) because they failed to make the showings required by that provision.
- The contempt determination was properly affirmed because appellants failed to comply with directives requiring notice of a pending transaction to sell the property.
Questions Presented
- Whether Supreme Court properly maintained restraints and escrow requirements on appellants' property to secure a potential arbitration award.
- Whether appellants were entitled to damages under CPLR 6312(b) based on the injunction-related restraints.
- Whether Supreme Court properly held appellants in contempt for failing to comply with orders requiring notice of a pending property transaction.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (2)
- Rosasco v. Cella, 124 AD3d 447, 448 (1st Dep't 2015)(followed)
- Ficus Invs., Inc. v. Private Capital Mgt., LLC, 61 AD3d 1, 12 (1st Dep't 2009)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…