Dankner v. Steefel, 2006-04834.

Decision Date12 June 2007
Docket Number2006-04836.,2006-04834.
Citation41 A.D.3d 526,838 N.Y.S.2d 601,2007 NY Slip Op 05214
PartiesDIANE ELLEN DANKNER, Respondent, v. JOHN EDWIN STEEFEL, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the order of contempt is modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the second, third, fourth, and fifth decretal paragraphs thereof, directing the appellant, inter alia, to comply with stated provisions of the so-ordered stipulation of settlement and conditionally imposing sanctions and penalties, including incarceration on weekends for a period of six months and, in effect, fines totaling up to $75,000, and substituting therefor provisions directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a fine in the sum of $1,000 as a sanction for his prior contempt, and directing the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff all items of property listed on the schedule attached to the so-ordered stipulation, except for those items previously delivered to the plaintiff and for which the plaintiff has already acknowledged receipt; as so modified, the order of contempt is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the order of commitment is vacated; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order of commitment is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of our determination of the appeal from the order of contempt; and it is further,

Ordered that within 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the fine in the sum of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Schwartz v. Schwartz
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 21, 2010
    ...knowledge of its terms ( see Judiciary Law § 753; Delijani v. Delijani, 73 A.D.3d 972, 973, 901 N.Y.S.2d 366; Dankner v. Steefel, 41 A.D.3d 526, 527-528, 838 N.Y.S.2d 601). The moving party bears the burden of proving contempt by clear and convincing evidence ( see Dankner v. Steefel, 41 A.......
  • Dunn v. Dunn
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 3, 2010
    ...702, 703, 869 N.Y.S.2d 604; Incorporated Vil. of Plandome Manor v. Ioannou, 54 A.D.3d 365, 366, 862 N.Y.S.2d 592; Dankner v. Steefel, 41 A.D.3d 526, 528, 838 N.Y.S.2d 601; Orange County-Poughkeepsie Ltd. Partnership v. Bonte, 37 A.D.3d 684, 686, 830 N.Y.S.2d 571). Here, the Supreme Court pr......
  • Manning v. Manning
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 22, 2011
    ...impeded, or prejudiced the rights of a party ( see Schwartz v. Schwartz, 79 A.D.3d 1006, 1009, 913 N.Y.S.2d 313; Dankner v. Steefel, 41 A.D.3d 526, 527–528, 838 N.Y.S.2d 601; Hinkson v. Daughtry–Hinkson, 31 A.D.3d 608, 819 N.Y.S.2d 535). Here, the evidence was sufficient to establish that t......
  • EK v. RK
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 18, 2015
    ...evidence. (See Wheels America New York, Ltd. v. Montalvo, 50 AD3d 1130, 856 N.Y.S.2d 247 [2nd Dept.2008] ; Dankner v. Steefel, 41 AD3d 526, 838 N.Y.S.2d 601 [2nd Dept.2007] ). Here, the Court finds that while the terms of a Stipulation of Settlement should have been adhered to, the Defendan......
  • 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