Slade v. Stanford

• Citation: 212 A.D.3d 636,181 N.Y.S.3d 333
• Decision Date: 11 January 2023
• Docket Number: 2020–02203,Index No. 203/19
• Parties: In the Matter of Derek SLADE, respondent, v. Tina M. STANFORD, etc., appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

212 A.D.3d 636
181 N.Y.S.3d 333

In the Matter of Derek SLADE, respondent,
v.
Tina M. STANFORD, etc., appellant.

2020–02203
Index No. 203/19

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

Argued—November 17, 2022
January 11, 2023

181 N.Y.S.3d 334

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Steven C. Wu and Mark S. Grube of counsel), for appellant.

Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York (Karen L. Murtagh, Matthew McGowan, and Amini LLC, New York, NY [John W. Brewer and Eric A. Seiff ], of counsel), for respondent.

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

212 A.D.3d 636

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole dated June 19, 2018, which, after an interview pursuant to Executive Law § 259–i(2)(a)(i), denied the petitioner's request to be released on parole, Tina M. Stanford, as the Chairperson of the New York State Parole Board, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Maria G. Rosa, J.), dated December 23, 2019. The order, after a hearing, granted that branch of the petitioner's motion which was to hold Tina M. Stanford in civil

212 A.D.3d 637

contempt for failure to comply with a judgment of the same court dated June 4, 2019.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the petitioner's motion which was to hold Tina M. Stanford in civil contempt for failure to comply with the judgment dated June 4, 2019, is denied.

"The aim of civil contempt is to vindicate a party's right to the benefits of a judicial mandate or to compensate that party for the interference by the contemnor" ( Matter of Banks v. Stanford, 159 A.D.3d 134, 140, 71 N.Y.S.3d 515 ; see Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, 466 N.Y.S.2d 279, 453 N.E.2d 508, amended 60 N.Y.2d 652, 467 N.Y.S.2d 571, 454 N.E.2d 1314 ). To support a finding of civil contempt, first, there must be a lawful order of the court in effect clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate....