N.Y.S. Office of Victim Servs. ex rel. Gold v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 29 June 2017
• Citation: N.Y.S. Office of Victim Servs. ex rel. Gold v. Robinson, 151 A.D.3d 1515, 57 N.Y.S.3d 741 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
• Parties: In the Matter of NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES, on Behalf of Alan Gold, Petitioner, v. Kenneth ROBINSON, Respondent. Alan Gold, Appellant. Michael Mangan, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

151 A.D.3d 1515

57 N.Y.S.3d 741

In the Matter of NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES, on Behalf of Alan Gold, Petitioner,

v.Kenneth ROBINSON, Respondent.

Alan Gold, Appellant.

Michael Mangan, Respondent.

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

June 29, 2017.

Kujawski & Kujawski, Deer Park (Mark C. Kujawski of counsel), for appellant.

Mangan Ginsberg, LLP, New York City(Jonathan Ginsberg of counsel), for Michael Mangan, respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, DEVINE, MULVEY and AARONS, JJ.

DEVINE, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court(O'Connor, J.), entered May 9, 2016 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 632–a, denied Alan Gold's motion to find Michael Mangan in contempt.

Respondent, Kenneth Robinson, was an inmate at Rikers Island in 2005 and, while there, assaulted correction officer Alan Gold.Robinson was subjected to a retaliatory beating by correction officers, causing him to commence and eventually settle a federal civil rights action for a sum of money that was deposited in the escrow account of attorney Michael Mangan.Petitioner commenced the present proceeding on behalf of Gold who, after learning of the federal settlement, aimed to commence an action against Robinson to recover for his injuries.Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction in 2010 that barred Mangan and others from disposing of the settlement monies until further order of the court.

Gold sued Robinson in Suffolk County and, despite Robinson's pro se efforts (seeMatter of Robinson v. Spinner, 101 A.D.3d 1130, 1130, 956 N.Y.S.2d 502[2012], appeal dismissed21 N.Y.3d 886, 965 N.Y.S.2d 779, 988 N.E.2d 516[2013] ), obtained a judgment against him in 2013.In 2014, upon Gold's motion in this proceeding, Supreme Court vacated the preliminary injunction and directed Mangan to pay over certain monies to Gold.Mangan responded by moving to vacate the Suffolk County judgment and, in this proceeding, for relief including a stay of enforcement of the 2014 order until that motion was resolved.

Supreme Court granted the requested stay in April 2015, apparently unaware that Mangan's motion to vacate the Suffolk County judgment had been denied two months earlier.Mangan continued to fail to keep Supreme Court apprised of developments in the Suffolk County action, in contravention of an express direction to do so in the April 2015 order.Supreme Court learned of the true state of affairs in August 2015 and, while it temporarily left the stay in place, it lifted the stay in December 2015 after Mangan declined to seek an extension.Mangan disbursed the demanded monies to counsel for Gold soon after.

Gold moved to hold Mangan in contempt a week before Supreme Court formally lifted the stay, pointing to Mangan's omissions with regard to the Suffolk County action and his generally obstructive conduct.Supreme Court, while acknowledging Mangan's behavior to be a wellspring of "frustrations and delays," found that it did not warrant holding him in contempt.Gold appeals and we affirm.

"To make a finding of civil contempt, it must be shown that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, a party has knowingly disobeyed a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court which results in prejudice to the rights of another party"( Tel Oil Co. v. City of Schenectady,292 A.D.2d 725, 725, 738 N.Y.S.2d 764[2002][citations omitted];seeJudiciary Law § 753[A][1], [3];El–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan,26 N.Y.3d 19, 29, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340[2015];Hush v. Taylor,121 A.D.3d 1363, 1364, 995 N.Y.S.2d 336[2014] ).Gold asserts that Mangan violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in numerous respects, most of which did not involve the disregard of a clear and unequivocal court mandate and, under the circumstances presented, could be pursued through a complaint to the Attorney Grievance Committee rather than in a motion for contempt(seeTel Oil...