Miller v. Miller
| Decision Date | 07 April 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2008-02586. |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 02760,877 N.Y.S.2d 148,61 A.D.3d 651 |
| Parties | HEATHER MILLER, Respondent, v. DANIEL MILLER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to hold the defendant in contempt of court for failure to comply with discovery and for an award of counsel fees in the sum of $8,800 are denied.
In this matrimonial action, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to hold the defendant in contempt of court for failure to comply with discovery and for an award of counsel fees to cover the costs of the motion. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion. We reverse the order insofar as appealed from.
In order to find a party in civil contempt of court pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753, the applicant must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor has intentionally engaged in conduct which violated a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal and explicit mandate (see McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216, 226 [1994]; Pereira v Pereira, 35 NY2d 301, 308 [1974]; Ottomanelli v Ottomanelli, 17 AD3d 647 [2005]; Matter of Hoglund v Hoglund, 234 AD2d 794 [1996]), thereby prejudicing the right of a party to the litigation (see Judiciary Law § 753 [A]; Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of NY v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 NY2d 233, 240 [1987]).
Applying these principles, we find that the Supreme Court improperly found the defendant in contempt of court. Given the defendant's overall compliance with the preliminary conference order, production of certain documents in court, and the rescheduling of depositions with the approval of the court, the finding of contempt against him was unwarranted (see Judiciary Law § 753; Berliner v Berliner, 33 AD3d 744 [2006]; Ottomanelli v Ottomanelli, 17 AD3d 647 [2005]; Kawar v Kawar, 231 AD2d 681, 682 [1996]), and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Brien v. O'Brien
...was not entitled to an award of counsel fees pursuant to Judiciary Law § 773 or Domestic Relations Law § 237(c) ( see Miller v. Miller, 61 A.D.3d 651, 652, 877 N.Y.S.2d 148;cf. Vider v. Vider, 85 A.D.3d 906, 908, 925 N.Y.S.2d 189;Loria v. Loria, 46 A.D.3d 768, 770, 848 N.Y.S.2d 681). Moreov......
-
In re White
...amount of the complainant's costs and expenses, plus $250.00. The evidentiary standard is “clear and convincing,” Miller v. Miller, 61 A.D.3d 651, 877 N.Y.S.2d 148, 149 (2009); Automated Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Mid–Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 A.D.3d 1073, 857 N.Y.S.2d 229, 231 (2008), and does n......
-
Collins v. Telcoa Int'l Corp..
...and the facts constituting the basis of the contempt must be proved by clear and convincing evidence ( see Miller v. Miller, 61 A.D.3d 651, 652, 877 N.Y.S.2d 148; Denaro v. Rosalia, 50 A.D.3d 727, 855 N.Y.S.2d 601; Rienzi v. Rienzi, 23 A.D.3d 447, 448, 808 N.Y.S.2d 113; Vujovic v. Vujovic, ......
-
Delijani v. Delijani
...marks omitted]; see Judiciary Law § 753; McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216, 227, 616 N.Y.S.2d 335, 639 N.E.2d 1132; Miller v. Miller, 61 A.D.3d 651, 652, 877 N.Y.S.2d 148; Massimi v. Massimi, 56 A.D.3d 624, 869 N.Y.S.2d 558). Moreover, “due process requires that, in contempt proceedings, the......
-
Attorney conduct
...motion where plaintif made a good faith efort to comply with the preliminary conference order discovery requests. Miller v. Miller , 61 A.D.3d 651, 877 N.Y.S.2d 148 (2d Dept. 2009). In divorce action, court improperly found defendant in contempt of court for failing to comply with discovery......
-
Table of cases
...N.Y.S.2d 305 (2d Dept. 1995), § 16:60 Miller v. Lu-Whitney, 61 A.D.3d 1043, 876 N.Y.S.2d 211 (3d Dept. 2009), § 14:150 Miller v. Miller, 61 A.D.3d 651, 877 N.Y.S.2d 148 (2d Dept. 2009), § 18:30 Millington v. New York City Transit Authority, 44 A.D.2d 542, 353 N.Y.S.2d 469 (1st Dept. 1974), ......
-
Attorney conduct
...motion where plaintif made a good faith efort to comply with the preliminary conference order discovery requests. Miller v. Miller , 61 A.D.3d 651, 877 N.Y.S.2d 148 (2d Dept. 2009). In divorce action, court improperly found defendant in contempt of court for failing to comply with discovery......
-
Attorney conduct
...motion where plaintiff made a good faith effort to comply with the preliminary conference order discovery requests. Miller v. Miller, 61 A.D.3d 651, 877 N.Y.S.2d 148 (2d Dept. 2009). In divorce action, court improperly found defendant in contempt of court for failing to comply with discover......