GUILLOT v. AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (2000)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Faizath GUILLOT, Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent, v. AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents-Appellants.

Decided: March 09, 2000

WILLIAMS, J.P., TOM, RUBIN and ANDRIAS, JJ.

Valerie S. Wolfman, for Petitioner-Appellant-Respondent. Christine B. Cesare, for Respondents-Respondents-Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered December 14, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, denied petitioner's motion to hold respondents in contempt of court and denied respondents' cross motion for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to hold respondents in contempt of court since it was not established with reasonable certainty that the subject income execution order was disobeyed or that respondents aided and abetted petitioner's husband in evading the court's support order (see, Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, 466 N.Y.S.2d 279, 453 N.E.2d 508; cf., Corpuel v. Galasso, 240 A.D.2d 531, 659 N.Y.S.2d 65, appeal dismissed 91 N.Y.2d 922, 669 N.Y.S.2d 263, 692 N.E.2d 132; Peters v. Sage Group Assocs., 238 A.D.2d 123, 655 N.Y.S.2d 500). We also decline to disturb the denial of respondents' motion for sanctions.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network