Hughes v. Kameneva
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 96 A.D.3d 845,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04749,946 N.Y.S.2d 211 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Gareth HUGHES, respondent, v. Aleksandra KAMENEVA, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 13 June 2012 |
96 A.D.3d 845
946 N.Y.S.2d 211
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04749
In the Matter of Gareth HUGHES, respondent,
v.
Aleksandra KAMENEVA, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
June 13, 2012.
[946 N.Y.S.2d 212]
Christopher J. Robles, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Peter M. Nissman, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Tammy E. Linn and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
[96 A.D.3d 845]In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (O'Shea, J.), dated April 12, 2011, as, after a hearing, granted those branches of the father's motion which were to adjudicate her in contempt for violating certain provisions in the parties' so-ordered custody stipulation dated November 23, 2004, and for violating prior orders of the same court dated March 19, 2008, and July 24, 2008, and, in effect, for an award of an attorney's fee. By decision and order on motion dated June 24, 2011, this Court stayed enforcement of the order dated April 12, 2011, pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
ORDERED that the order dated April 12, 2011, is modified, on [96 A.D.3d 846]the facts and in the exercise of discretion, (1) by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the father's motion which was to adjudicate the mother in contempt for violating certain provisions of the parties' so-ordered custody stipulation, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the father's motion which was, in effect, for an award of an attorney's fee, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order dated April 12, 2011, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
A motion to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and the movant bears the burden of proving the contempt by clear and convincing evidence ( see Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 66 A.D.3d 944, 946, 889 N.Y.S.2d 598;Rienzi v. Rienzi, 23 A.D.3d 447, 449, 808 N.Y.S.2d 113). “To sustain a finding of civil contempt, a court must find that the alleged contemnor violated a lawful order which clearly expressed an unequivocal mandate, and that, as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.D. v. A.D., 5* * * */* *.
...evidence. See McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 466 N.Y.S.2d 279, 453 N.E.2d 508 (1983) ; See also, Matter of Hughes v. Kameneva, 96 A.D.3d 845, 946 N.Y.S.2d 211 (2d Dept.2012). While "willfulness" is an essential element for a finding of "criminal contempt", the mere act of disobedience......
-
El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan
...of the court, and the movant bears the burden of proving the contempt by clear and convincing evidence” ( Matter of Hughes v. Kameneva, 96 A.D.3d 845, 846, 946 N.Y.S.2d 211; see Educational Reading Aids Corp. v. Young, 175 A.D.2d 152, 572 N.Y.S.2d 39). In Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 ......
-
Enlarged City Sch. Dist. of Middletown v. City of Middletown
...any set of conditions. Rather, the evidence showed that the Commissioner of Public Works of the City of Middletown, who was responsible [946 N.Y.S.2d 211]for reviewing the application and issuing the permit ( see Code of the City of Middletown § 389–1 [A] ), did not receive the properly sta......
-
Cook v. Cook
...unequivocal mandate contained in the settlement agreement or the so-ordered stipulation of settlement (see Matter of Hughes v. Kameneva, 96 A.D.3d 845, 946 N.Y.S.2d 211 ; Matter of Nelson v. Nelson, 194 A.D.2d 828, 598 N.Y.S.2d 609 ; Matter of Frandsen v. Frandsen, 190 A.D.2d 975, 594 N.Y.S......