Blutreich v. Amalgamated Dwellings, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.