Collins v. Telcoa Int'l Corp..

• Decision Date: 12 July 2011
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05948,86 A.D.3d 549,927 N.Y.S.2d 151
• Parties: Joseph COLLINS, appellant,v.TELCOA INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al., defendants-respondents, et al., defendants;Martin P. Unger, et al., nonparty-respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

86 A.D.3d 549

927 N.Y.S.2d 151

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05948

Joseph COLLINS, appellant,

v.TELCOA INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al., defendants-respondents, et al., defendants;Martin P. Unger, et al., nonparty-respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

July 12, 2011.

Bailey & Sherman, P.C., Douglaston, N.Y. (Edward G. Bailey and Anthony V. Gentile of counsel), for appellant.Martin P. Unger, Garden City, N.Y., nonparty-respondent pro se.Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Thomas J. McNamara, Candace Reid Gladston, and Donna–Marie Korth of counsel), nonparty-respondent pro se.Blank Rome, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Leonard D. Steinman of counsel), nonparty-respondent pro se.WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, ARIEL E. BELEN, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

[927 N.Y.S.2d 152 , 86 A.D.3d 549]

In an action, inter alia, for dissolution of two corporations and to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), dated June 18, 2010, as denied that branch of his cross motion which was to hold the defendants Telcoa International Corp., Telcoa New York Corp., Central Station Signals, Inc., and Robert Dolin, and nonparty attorneys Martin P. Unger and Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, in civil contempt for their alleged violation of a court-ordered escrow arrangement, and denied that branch of his separate motion which was to hold nonparty attorneys Blank Rome, LLP, in civil contempt for its alleged violation of the same court-ordered escrow arrangement.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Where, as here, a party seeks an adjudication of civil contempt based upon a violation of a court order, he or she must establish a willful and deliberate violation of a lawful court order expressing a clear and unequivocal mandate ( see Judiciary Law § 753; McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216, 226, 616 N.Y.S.2d 335, 639 N.E.2d 1132; Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, 466 N.Y.S.2d 279, 453 N.E.2d 508; Delijani v. Delijani, 73 A.D.3d 972, 973, 901 N.Y.S.2d 366; Rupp–Elmasri v. Elmasri, 305 A.D.2d 394, 395, 758 N.Y.S.2d 524). The burden of proof is on the party seeking the contempt adjudication, and the facts constituting the basis of the contempt must be proved by clear and convincing evidence ( see Miller v. Miller, 61 A.D.3d 651, 652, 877 N.Y.S.2d 148; Denaro v. Rosalia, 50 A.D.3d 727, 855 N.Y.S.2d 601; Rienzi v. Rienzi, 23 A.D.3d 447, 448, 808 N.Y.S.2d 113; Vujovic v. Vujovic, 16 A.D.3d 490, 491, 791 N.Y.S.2d 648). The question of whether to then grant a civil contempt motion and, if so, the fixing of the appropriate remedy, is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court upon consideration of the surrounding circumstances ( see Matter of...