Citation Numbers: 7 A.D.3d 269, 775 N.Y.S.2d 530, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6463
Filed Date: 5/4/2004
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
The order was clearly a contempt finding against defendant for failure to comply with a prior unconditional court order to issue privatized stock to plaintiffs (see Blutreich v Amalgamated Dwellings, 298 AD2d 185 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 501 [2003]). Accordingly, legal fees were properly recoverable by plaintiffs pursuant to Judiciary Law § 773 (see Holskin v 22 Prince St. Assoc., 178 AD2d 347 [1991]).
We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.