Stanley Kosiorek, Executor v. Jacek I. Smigelski et al. (2011)

DECISION AND ORDERS RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, # 224

On December 1, 2010, the court modified the prejudgment remedy in this matter to $298,458.29, and, on February 28, 2011, the plaintiff moved for orders of garnishment, as well as orders for the defendant to disclose certain assets.   Among the disclosed assets provided was a promissory note from John Glowka, in the original amount of $25,000 and a promissory note from Julius Janusz, in the original amount of $25,000.¹

Although the court had previously vacated an order of garnishment against Glowka and Janusz, having reviewed the motion as well as the objections filed by the defendants, Jacek Smigelski and 122 Main Associates, and upon further consideration, on May 3, 2011, the court ordered a prejudgment garnishment to the value of $298,458.29 “of all sums due the defendant, Jacek Smigelski, under certain promissory notes which he disclosed as assets, from John Glowka, originally in the amount of $25,000, [and] from Julius Janusz originally in the amount of $25,000 ․” See order dated May 3, 2011.

On May 16, 2011, the defendant, Smigelski, filed a Motion to Reargue the orders entered on May 3, 2011.   On May 16, 2011, the defendant, 122 Main Street Associates, LLC, filed a motion requesting an articulation of the legal and factual grounds on which the court granted the plaintiff's prejudgment garnishment of sums due the defendant, Smigelski.   The motion also set forth the defendant's, 122 Main Street Associates, LLC, arguments as to why the court should not have ordered the garnishment of payments from Glowka and Janusz to Smigelski.

On May 10, 2011, the plaintiff issued a summons on Julius Janusz and John Glowka, serving each of them with a copy of the motion and order of garnishment.   On June 22, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for contempt, # 224, requesting that Glowka and Janusz be held in contempt of the court for failing to respond to the court order in a timely and appropriate fashion, and on August 1, 2011, the court heard the motion for contempt.

Glowka and Janusz appeared personally and through their attorney.   The defendant, Smigelski, did not appear.   The court heard from the plaintiff as well as counsel for Glowka and Janusz, and one exhibit was introduced as evidence.   Having carefully considered the motions, as well as arguments of counsel, the court orders the following.

Motion # 221—Motion to reargue—denied.

Motion # 222—Motion for articulation—denied.

Motion # 224—Motion for contempt—denied without prejudice.   Glowka and Janusz shall within ten (10) days of this order fully comply with the court's orders of May 3, 2011.

The matter shall be continued until August 29, 2011.   If there has been compliance, the plaintiff's counsel may mark the matter off.

Swienton, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. A third promissory note from The Hole in the Wall Gang, in the original amount of $125,000 was also disclosed, but is not a subject of this motion, as it has complied with the court's order of May 3, 2011..  FN1. A third promissory note from The Hole in the Wall Gang, in the original amount of $125,000 was also disclosed, but is not a subject of this motion, as it has complied with the court's order of May 3, 2011.

Swienton, Cynthia K., J.