Matter of Feola v Carroll
Motion No: 2004-09356
Slip Opinion No: 2007 NYSlipOp 82912(U)
Decided on November 2, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports.


Supreme Court of the State of New York

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M62099

J/sl

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

ROBERT W. SCHMIDT

REINALDO E. RIVERA

STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.

2004-09356

In the Matter of Donald Feola, appellant,

v Patrick J. Carroll, etc., et al., respondents.

(Index No. 04-5935)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the appellant to hold the respondents in contempt for their failure to comply with a decision and order of this court dated January 24, 2006, which determined an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered September 29, 2004. By decision and order on motion dated December 22, 2006, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to "hear and determine" the issue of whether the respondents should be held in contempt for their failure to reinstate the petitioner as a police officer, and the motion was held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, was then directed to file its report with all convenient speed. The Supreme Court has issued an order entered May 24, 2007.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, it is

ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the decision and order on motion of this court dated December 22, 2006, is amended by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the words "hear and determine" and substituting therefor the words "hear and report"; and it is further,

ORDERED that those portions of pages 3 through 4 of the order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 24, 2007, as addressed the motion to hold the respondents in contempt are deemed to be a report; and it is further,

ORDERED that the motion to hold the respondents in contempt is denied.

PRUDENTI, P.J., SCHMIDT, RIVERA and FISHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court