Contempt not purged

Ravnikar v Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 09904 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)

Finally, in response to this Court's earlier remittal of the matter (see Ravnikar v Skyline Credit-Ride, Inc., 71 AD3d 859), the report of the Supreme Court clarified that, in the order dated July 8, 2008, it intended to hold only nonparty James Orozco in contempt for his failure to appear for a deposition, and further stated that the contempt has since been purged. Inasmuch as enduring consequences potentially flow from an order adjudicating a party in civil contempt, an appeal from a contempt adjudication is not rendered academic when the contempt is purged (see Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch, 87 NY2d 862; Matter of Er-Mei Y., 29 AD3d 1013; Chamberlain v Chamberlain, 24 AD3d 589). The finding of contempt based upon Orozco's refusal to appear for a subpoenaed deposition was appropriate (see Judiciary Law § 753[A][5]; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583; Bell v White, 55 AD3d 1211). 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s