Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The defendants argue, among other things, that since an order dated January 11, 1990, granting a preliminary injunction in this matter was reversed by this Court (Busters Cleaning Corp. v Frati, 180 A.D.2d 705), they cannot be held in contempt for violating the temporary restraining order, which prohibited essentially the same conduct. We disagree. The defendants here were found to be in contempt and in violation of the temporary restraining order before the order granting the preliminary injunction was reversed (compare, People ex rel. Interborough R.T. Co. v Lavin, 131 Misc. 758; Taber v Manhattan Ry. Co., 14 Misc. 189, affd 148 N.Y. 743). "If, on the papers presented, the court had authority to make [an] order * * * though it erred in making the order, the defendant was properly [found in contempt]" (Bachman v Harrington, 184 N.Y. 458, 462). This is so because, unless a stay is in effect, an order of the court must be obeyed even if erroneously made, so long as the court has jurisdiction and its order is not void on its face (see, Ketchum v Edwards, 153 N.Y. 534, 538-539; People ex rel. Day v Bergen, 53 N.Y. 404, 410).
We have examined the defendants' remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.