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.
Lewis F. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, Robert S. Oaks, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary J. PALONE, Eileen E. Palone and Paradise Promotions, Inc., Defendants-Respondents.
Robert S. Oaks (plaintiff) appeals from an order denying his motion to hold defendants in contempt for failing to comply with the terms of a prior judgment. That prior judgment, which this Court modified in two respects not relevant to this appeal (Smith v. Palone, 226 A.D.2d 1055, 642 N.Y.S.2d 119), prohibited defendants from, inter alia, using certain portions of their property located on Hayes Road for a race track and racing activities, including parking. Supreme Court properly determined that plaintiff failed to establish that defendants failed to comply with the terms of the prior judgment by allegedly allowing patrons of the race track to park on the shoulder of the road in question. “To sustain a civil contempt, a lawful judicial order [or judgment] expressing an unequivocal mandate must have been in effect and disobeyed” (McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216, 226, 616 N.Y.S.2d 335, 639 N.E.2d 1132). Defendants do not own the shoulder of the road in question, and the prior judgment related to property owned by defendants. Indeed, the shoulder of the road is included in the roadway easement of the Town of Phelps, over which defendants did not exercise any control (see generally Town Law § 130[7][a]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1660[a] [18] ). We thus conclude that plaintiff failed to establish defendants' willful violation of the prior judgment (see generally McCain, 84 N.Y.2d at 226, 616 N.Y.S.2d 335, 639 N.E.2d 1132).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
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: June 13, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)