Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PACE ADVERTISING AGENCY, INC., Petitioner-Respondent, v. MANHATTAN PACIFIC MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., Respondent-Appellant, M.J. Raynes, Inc., Judgment-Debtor.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered June 21, 1996, which, in a turnover proceeding, granted petitioner judgment creditor's motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee, adjudged respondent garnishee in civil contempt, fined respondent $57,478.16, together with plaintiff's costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees, and permitted respondent to purge its contempt by paying such fine and fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The record supports the Special Referee's rejection of most of the offsets claimed by respondent and finding that respondent owes the judgment debtor $57,478.16. The documentary evidence, and indeed respondent's own concession that its seven prior accountings were inaccurate, constitute a clear showing of respondent's disobedience of the court's prior orders to provide proper accountings, prejudicing petitioner and warranting a finding of contempt. The court properly refused to permit respondent to introduce “additional offsets” that had not been included in any of the seven prior accountings after the hearing had already begun. The $57,478.16 found owing, plus petitioner's costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, is an “actual loss or injury” sustained by petitioner for which respondent was properly fined (Judiciary Law § 773; Gordon v. Janover, 121 A.D.2d 599, 503 N.Y.S.2d 860). We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 06, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)