The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Pursuit Capital Mgt., LLC v. Claridge Assoc., LLC
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Pursuit Capital Mgt., LLC v. Claridge Assoc., LLC

243 654301/12·Judge: Mazzarelli, Friedman, Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels0 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Pursuit Capital Mgt., LLC v Claridge Assoc., LLC (2016 NY Slip Op 01130) Purs...
  • THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
  • CLERK

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Pursuit Capital Mgt., LLC v Claridge Assoc., LLC (2016 NY Slip Op 01130) Purs...
  • THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
  • CLERK

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

Pursuit Capital Mgt., LLC v Claridge Assoc., LLC (2016 NY Slip Op 01130)
Pursuit Capital Mgt., LLC v Claridge Assoc., LLC
2016 NY Slip Op 01130
Decided on February 16, 2016
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 16, 2016
Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

243 654301/12

[*1]Pursuit Capital Management, LLC, Petitioner,

v

Claridge Associates, LLC, et al., Respondents-Appellants. Northeast Capital Management, LLC, Nonparty Respondent.




Harris, O'Brien, St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP, New York (Andrew St. Laurent of counsel), for appellants.

Cane & Associates LLP, New York (Peter S. Cane of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about November 19, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied respondents-appellants' (respondents') motion to hold nonparty respondent Northeast Capital Management, LLC and related nonparties in contempt, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondents' motion to hold Northeast in contempt of an order entered September 13, 2013, which the motion court had already determined did not apply to Northeast (see e.g. El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 28-29 [2015]; Miller v Icon Group LLC, 107 AD3d 585, 585 [1st Dept 2013]). The motion court, in denying the motion for contempt, did not effectively vacate the September 13, 2013 order.

We have considered respondents' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 16, 2016

CLERK



The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap