Coyle v. Coyle

Decision Date02 June 2009
Docket Number2007-11677.,2008-01962.
Citation63 A.D.3d 657,2009 NY Slip Op 04368,882 N.Y.S.2d 423
PartiesSUSAN COYLE, Respondent, v. TIMOTHY COYLE, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 29, 2008 is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 15, 2007 is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing in accordance herewith and a new determination thereafter.

The appeal from the order dated January 29, 2008 must be dismissed. The defendant's motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue and renew, was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue, because it was not based on new facts (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]). An order denying a motion for leave to reargue is not appealable (see Viola v Blanco, 1 AD3d 506 [2003]).

To prevail on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the movant must establish (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms, and (3) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct (see Galanos v Galanos, 46 AD3d 507 [2007]; Biggio v Biggio, 41 AD3d 753 [2007]). "A hearing is not mandated in every instance where contempt is sought; it need only be conducted if a factual dispute exists which cannot be resolved on the papers alone" (Jaffe v Jaffe, 44 AD3d 825, 826 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

The record demonstrates that the parties' stipulation of settlement was clear and unambiguous. However, there was an unresolved factual...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • D.D. v. A.D.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 16, 2017
    ...to have disobeyed the Order was aware of its terms, and (3) that the moving party's rights were prejudiced. See Coyle v. Coyle, 63 A.D.3d 657, 882 N.Y.S.2d 423 (2d Dept.2009) ; See also Keller v. Keller, 126 A.D.3d 940, 6 N.Y.S.3d 126 (2d Dept.2015). These elements must be established by th......
  • El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 18, 2013
    ...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.2d 423; Galanos v. Galanos, 46 A.D.3d 507, 846 N.Y.S.2d 654). However, another line of cases developed after McCormick, which he......
  • Newmexico v. R.G.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 2, 2014
    ...to have disobeyed the Order was aware of its terms, and (3) that the moving party's rights were prejudiced. See Coyle v. Coyle, 63 A.D.3d 657, 882 N.Y.S.2d 423 (2d Dept.2009). In addition, the movant must demonstrate that the offending party's failure to obey the terms of the order was will......
  • Weissman v. Weissman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 12, 2015
    ...109 A.D.3d 648, 649–650, 972 N.Y.S.2d 269 ; Matter of Philie v. Singer, 79 A.D.3d 1041, 1042, 913 N.Y.S.2d 745 ; Coyle v. Coyle, 63 A.D.3d 657, 658, 882 N.Y.S.2d 423 ; Galanos v. Galanos, 46 A.D.3d 507, 508, 846 N.Y.S.2d 654 ; Raphael v. Raphael, 20 A.D.3d 463, 464, 799 N.Y.S.2d 108 ). Neve......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT