Alderman v. Alderman
| Decision Date | 03 November 2010 |
| Citation | 909 N.Y.S.2d 916,78 A.D.3d 620 |
| Parties | William ALDERMAN, respondent, v. Donna ALDERMAN, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard E. Lerner and Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for appellant.
Fredman Baken & Kosan, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (E. Michael Kosan and Neil A. Fredman of counsel), for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), dated September 25, 2009, which granted those branches of the plaintiff's motions which were to hold her in civil contempt for violating an order of the same court (Snyder, Ct.Atty.Ref.) dated April 24, 2009, and for an award of an attorney's fee, and (2) an amended order of the same court (Walker, J.) entered October 2, 2009, which granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to hold her in civil contempt for violating orders of the same court (Snyder, Ct.Atty.Ref.), dated January 26, 2009, and January 30, 2009, respectively, and for an award of an attorney's fee.
ORDERED that the order dated September 25, 2009, and the amended order entered October 2, 2009, are affirmed, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff.
"To sustain a finding of civil contempt, a court must find that the alleged contemnor violated a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, of which that party had knowledge, and that as a result of the violation a right of a party to the litigation was prejudiced" ( Incorporated Vil. of Plandome Manor v. Ioannou, 54 A.D.3d 365, 366, 862 N.Y.S.2d 592; see Judiciary Law § 753[A][3]; McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216, 226-227, 616 N.Y.S.2d 335, 639 N.E.2d 1132; Astrada v. Archer, 71 A.D.3d 803, 806, 898 N.Y.S.2d 149; Town of Huntington v. Reuschenberg, 70 A.D.3d 814, 815, 893 N.Y.S.2d 638; Casavecchia v. Mizrahi, 57 A.D.3d 702, 703, 869 N.Y.S.2d 604).
Here, the record reveals that the defendant was aware of the clear and unequivocal mandates contained in the subject orders previously issued by the Supreme Court, that she violated those orders, and that her conduct defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced the plaintiff's rights or remedies. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motions which were to hold the defendant in civil contempt.
Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court's awards of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan
...v. Gobin, 94 A.D.3d 1030, 1031, 943 N.Y.S.2d 164; see e.g. Rose v. Levine, 84 A.D.3d 1206, 1207, 923 N.Y.S.2d 689; Alderman v. Alderman, 78 A.D.3d 620, 909 N.Y.S.2d 916; Town of Riverhead v. T.S. Haulers, Inc. 68 A.D.3d 1103, 890 N.Y.S.2d 332; Coyle v. Coyle, 63 A.D.3d 657, 658, 882 N.Y.S.2......
-
Keller v. Keller
...592 ; see Judiciary Law § 753[A][3] ; McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216, 226–227, 616 N.Y.S.2d 335, 639 N.E.2d 1132 ; Alderman v. Alderman, 78 A.D.3d 620, 909 N.Y.S.2d 916 ; Astrada v. Archer, 71 A.D.3d 803, 806, 898 N.Y.S.2d 149 ). Here, the plaintiff was aware of his child support obligati......
-
Wood v. Wood
...1314 ; Bernard–Cadet v. Gobin, 94 A.D.3d 1030, 943 N.Y.S.2d 164 ; Rubin v. Rubin, 78 A.D.3d 812, 911 N.Y.S.2d 384 ; Alderman v. Alderman, 78 A.D.3d 620, 909 N.Y.S.2d 916 ; Judiciary Law § 753[A] )."A hearing is not mandated in every instance where contempt is sought; it need only be conduct......
-
Greenaway v. Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.
...disbursements are also recoverable. See Matter of Claydon, 103 A.D.3d 1051, 962 N.Y.S.2d 352 (2d Dept. 2013); Alderman v. Alderman, 78 A.D.3d 620, 909 N.Y.S.2d 916 (2d Dept. 2010), Matter of Carol S. (Christine T. - Mary AA.), 68 A.D.3d 1337, 890 N.Y.S.2d 209 (3d Dept. 2009). See also Judic......