## Facts

- Rigas operated a sidewalk fruit stand in front of 89 Park Row in New York City.
- Rigas sued the Commissioner of Public Works (Manhattan) and the Superintendent of the Bureau of Incumbrances to prevent city removal of the stand.
- The court issued a temporary injunction, later continued pendente lite, restraining the named city officials and stating it applied to “all persons having knowledge” of the order.
- Levy was the tenant of the store behind the stand and wanted the stand removed.
- Levy’s landlord (through an agent and attorney) brought Municipal Court summary proceedings to dispossess Levy; Levy defaulted and a warrant issued.
- A city marshal, accompanied by the landlord’s attorney, executed the dispossess warrant; during execution, Rigas’s fruit stand was removed and destroyed.
- Rigas initiated contempt proceedings against Levy and others involved, alleging violation of the injunction; Special Term adjudged civil contempt and imposed a $150 fine, and the Appellate Division affirmed without opinion.
- The record contained suspicion that Levy orchestrated events to evade the injunction, but did not clearly show Levy’s personal directions or participation; Levy submitted a sworn denial.

## Issues

1. Whether a pendente lite injunction can bind and support contempt sanctions against nonparties solely because they had notice of the order and the order purported to restrain “all persons having knowledge.”
2. Whether the evidence sufficiently showed that the alleged contemnors acted as agents of, or in active concert or collusion with, the enjoined city officials.
3. Whether illegal destruction of property during execution of a separate dispossess warrant constitutes contempt of the injunction, rather than an independent civil or criminal wrong.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the orders below and denied the contempt application, without costs.
- The court held that the injunction did not bind the landlord, attorney, or marshal as “strangers” to the action absent proof they acted as agents of, or in collusion with, the enjoined defendants.
- The court held the record did not clearly establish Levy’s culpable participation to sustain contempt in a quasi-criminal proceeding.
- The court noted the conduct could be illegal and actionable (e.g., trespass), but that did not itself establish contempt of the injunction.

## Legal Principles

- A temporary injunction pendente lite binds only the parties and those acting as their officers, agents, servants, or in active concert or collusion with them.
- An injunction cannot be extended to bind strangers to the action merely by stating it applies to all persons with knowledge of the order.
- Knowledge of an injunction, without an agency or collusive relationship to an enjoined party, is insufficient to support contempt.
- Contempt, as a quasi-criminal sanction, requires clear proof that a person legally bound by the order violated it.
- Conduct carried out under a separate legal process, without participation by the enjoined parties, does not become contempt merely because it interferes with interests the injunction sought to protect.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals rejected contempt sanctions for destruction of the fruit stand because the injunction against city officials could not be used to punish nonparties with notice absent clear proof they acted in concert with the enjoined defendants; the remedy for the wrong lay in ordinary civil or criminal proceedings, not contempt.


Rigas v. Livingston, 178 N.Y. 20 (N.Y. 1904)