Coyle v. Coyle
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 63 A.D.3d 657,2009 NY Slip Op 04368,882 N.Y.S.2d 423 |
| Docket Number | 2007-11677.,2008-01962. |
| Parties | SUSAN COYLE, Respondent, v. TIMOTHY COYLE, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 02 June 2009 |
v.
TIMOTHY COYLE, Appellant.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered April 3, 2003, the defendant father appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (MacKenzie, J.), dated November 15, 2007, as, without a hearing, granted the motion of the plaintiff mother to hold him in contempt for failure to comply with certain provisions in the parties' so-ordered stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the
judgment of divorce, and (2) from an order of the same court dated January 29, 2008, which denied his motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue and renew, but which was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.D. v. A.D., 5* * * */* *.
...alleged 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 establish......
-
El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan
...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.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......
-
Newmexico v. R.G.
...alleged 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 ......
-
Weissman v. Weissman, 2013-08360
...Penavic, 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 10......