Galanos v. Galanos, 2006-05825
| Decision Date | 04 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2006-05825 |
| Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 09553,846 N.Y.S.2d 654,46 A.D.3d 507 |
| Parties | LOUIS GALANOS, Respondent, v. SUZANNE GALANOS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as directed the defendant's incarceration for a period of 30 days without the opportunity to purge the contempt is dismissed as academic; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
In order to prevail on a motion to punish a party for civil contempt, the movant must demonstrate that the party charged with the contempt violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court, thereby prejudicing the movant's rights (see Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]; McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216, 226 [1994]; Gloveman Realty Corp. v Jefferys, 29 AD3d 858, 859 [2006]; Raphael v Raphael, 20 AD3d 463, 464 [2005]). The movant "bears the burden of proving contempt by clear and convincing evidence" (Dankner v Steefel, 41 AD3d 526, 528 [2007]). In addition, "the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the order" (McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d at 226). Here, the plaintiff met his burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant violated a lawful and unequivocal mandate, to wit, an explicit directive contained in the order dated January 30, 2004, of which she had knowledge, and, in so doing, prejudiced the plaintiff's rights (see Biggio v Biggio, 41 AD3d 753, 754 [2007]; Raphael v Raphael, 20 AD3d at 464).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the order of contempt contained a description of the acts she committed constituting the contempt, and set forth the required recital that the contemptuous conduct was "calculated to, or actually did, defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the [plaintiff's] rights or remedies" (Judiciary Law § 770; see Judiciary Law § 753 [A]; Biggio v Biggio, 41 AD3d at 754; Raphael v Raphael, 20...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan
...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 held: “To prevail on a motion to punish a party for civil conte......
-
Weissman v. Weissman
...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 ). Nevertheless, the plaintiff correctly contends that the......
-
Penavic v. Penavic
...at 226, 616 N.Y.S.2d 335, 639 N.E.2d 1132; Matter of Rothschild v. Edwards, 63 A.D.3d 744, 745, 880 N.Y.S.2d 687; Galanos v. Galanos, 46 A.D.3d 507, 508, 846 N.Y.S.2d 654; Rienzi v. Rienzi, 23 A.D.3d 447, 448, 808 N.Y.S.2d 113). While the plaintiff was aware of the HELOC at the time that sh......
-
Hayes v. Barroga-Hayes
...that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct” ( Coyle v. Coyle, 63 A.D.3d 657, 658, 882 N.Y.S.2d 423;see Galanos v. Galanos, 46 A.D.3d 507, 508, 846 N.Y.S.2d 654;Biggio v. Biggio, 41 A.D.3d 753, 753–754, 839 N.Y.S.2d 527;Raphael v. Raphael, 20 A.D.3d 463, 463, 799 N.Y.S.2d 108). ......