From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davey v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 2, 2008
57 A.D.3d 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 4726.

December 2, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered on or about October 15, 2007, which, after a hearing, granted defendants' application to find plaintiff in civil contempt for violating a legal mandate of the court and directed plaintiff to purge the contempt, within 10 days, by paying counsel fees and costs to defendants in an amount totaling $28,309.97, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Peter F. Davey, appellant pro se.

Mary F. Kelly, White Plains, respondent pro se. Kelly Knaplund, White Plains (Mary F. Kelly of counsel) for Kelly Knaplund, respondent.

John A. Raimondo, White Plains, for Bruce P. Bendish and Goodrich Bendish, respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.


The record establishes that plaintiff was expressly prohibited by two prior court orders from filing any litigation relating to his divorce action without first obtaining permission from the court, and that plaintiff, without obtaining said permission, filed actions asserting collateral attacks on the divorce proceedings to the detriment of the remedies accorded defendants by the court's prohibitory orders ( see Richards v Estate of Kaskel, 169 AD2d 111, 121, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 78 NY2d 1042; Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [1]).

The court properly declined to assign counsel to plaintiff in light of his admissions regarding his financial status ( see People ex rel. Lobenthal v Koehler, 129 AD2d 28, 31-33).

We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Davey v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 2, 2008
57 A.D.3d 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Davey v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:PETER F. DAVEY, Appellant, v. MARY F. KELLY et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 2, 2008

Citations

57 A.D.3d 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9464
869 N.Y.S.2d 37

Citing Cases

Ruesch v. Ruesch

This is consistent with this Court's orders in all cases where the custody and welfare of minor children are…

Genger v. Genger

” In sum, the motion court properly found that TPR and D & K GP had disobeyed “a lawful mandate of the court”…