Weissman v. Weissman
| Decision Date | 12 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2013-08360 |
| Parties | Debra WEISSMAN, appellant, v. Ronald WEISSMAN, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
131 A.D.3d 529
18 N.Y.S.3d 59
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06506
Debra WEISSMAN, appellant
v.
Ronald WEISSMAN, respondent.
2013-08360
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug. 12, 2015.
Marcia E. Kusnetz, Rye Brook, N.Y., for appellant.
Joseph R. Miano, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (John P. Colangelo, J.), dated July 24, 2013. The order granted the defendant's motion to hold the plaintiff in civil contempt of a stipulation of settlement dated May 25, 2004, which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce dated November 28, 2005, suspended the defendant's obligation to make maintenance payments to the plaintiff for a period of eight months beginning August 1, 2013, imposed a fine upon the plaintiff in the sum of $7,500, and awarded the defendant an attorney's fee in the sum of $4,884.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof suspending the defendant's obligation to make maintenance payments to the plaintiff for a period of eight months beginning August 1, 2013, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof imposing a fine upon the plaintiff in the sum of $7,500, and substituting therefor a provision imposing a fine upon the plaintiff in the sum of $2,750; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement dated May 25, 2004, which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce dated November 28, 2005. In February 2012, the defendant moved to hold the plaintiff in contempt, alleging that she violated the stipulation's confidentiality provision. The stipulation prohibited either party from disclosing to third parties, other than medical or other professionals who were treating or assisting that party in their professional capacity, any of the allegations of misconduct by the parties which had been litigated in the action. In support, the defendant submitted, among other things, a letter from the plaintiff to the defendant's attorney, dated January 31, 2012, which was copied to eleven third parties. The letter mentioned one of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Kenneth R., XXXXX
... ... for each day ACS failed to comply with court orders directing that the child be placed in a specific kinship foster home]; see also Weissman v. Weissman , 131 A.D.3d 529, 18 N.Y.S.3d 59 [2d Dept. 2015] [former spouse was entitled to the statutory maximum of $250 for each of the 11 acts of ... ...
-
Marszalek v. Stanford
... ... ).Contrary to the petitioner's contention, this is not a case in which separate fines may be imposed for separate acts of disobedience (see Weissman v. Weissman, 131 A.D.3d 529, 18 N.Y.S.3d 59 ; Town Bd. of Town of Southampton v. R.K.B. Realty, LLC, 91 A.D.3d 628, 936 N.Y.S.2d 228 ). The Supreme ... ...