Fishman v. Solomon

• Decision Date: 11 July 2018
• Docket Number: 2016–10919, 2016–10920,Index No. 27596/10
• Parties: Marc FISHMAN, Appellant, v. Jennifer SOLOMON, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

163 A.D.3d 630
76 N.Y.S.3d 846 (Mem)

Marc FISHMAN, Appellant,
v.
Jennifer SOLOMON, Respondent.

2016–10919, 2016–10920
Index No. 27596/10

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

Submitted—May 17, 2018
July 11, 2018

Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant.

Legal Services of the Hudson Valley, White Plains, N.Y. (Virginia S. Foulkrod of counsel), for respondent.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

76 N.Y.S.3d 847

DECISION & ORDER

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Janet C. Malone, J.), dated April 20, 2016, and (2) an order of the same court dated July 27, 2016. The order dated July 27, 2016, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, (a) in effect, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to hold the plaintiff in civil contempt for his willful violation of a prior order of the same court (Paul I. Marx, J.) dated June 5, 2014, (b) in effect, vacated a prior order of the same court (Paul I. Marx, J.) dated February 28, 2014, restraining the funds in the plaintiff's TD/Hartford Waterhouse Variable Annuity account, and (c) directed the release of the funds in that account to the defendant.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated April 20, 2016, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated July 27, 2016; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated July 27, 2016, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The concession made by the plaintiff that he failed to comply with an order of the Supreme Court dated June 5, 2014, which directed him, inter alia, to pay the defendant the sum of $18,000 by August 1, 2014, and which provided that the plaintiff would be deemed to have consented to a finding of willfulness if he failed to cure a default within 10 days upon notice from the defendant, established, prima facie, the plaintiff's willful violation of the court's mandate (see ...