| Muraca v Meyerowitz |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02559 [49 AD3d 697] |
| March 18, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Felice J. Muraca, Appellant, v Mark Meyerowitz et al.,Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Michael A. Ciaffa of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law article 15, inter alia, toestablish riparian dividing lines between adjoining parcels of property, the plaintiff appeals froman order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated March 28, 2007, which deniedhis motion to hold the defendants Mark Meyerowitz and Karen Meyerowitz in criminal contemptfor their alleged failure to comply with a judgment of the same court entered October 12, 2006.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"An essential element of criminal contempt is willful disobedience" (Dalessio v Kressler, 6 AD3d 57,66 [2004]). Indeed, "[t]o be found guilty of criminal contempt, the contemnor usually must beshown to have violated the order [or judgment] with a higher degree of willfulness than isrequired in a civil contempt proceeding" (Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of Cityof N.Y. v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 NY2d 233, 240 [1987]).Moreover, unlike a civil contempt proceeding, proof of guilt must be established beyond areasonable doubt in a criminal contempt proceeding (see County of Rockland v Civil Serv.Empls. Assn., 62 NY2d 11, 16 [1984]; N.A. Dev. Co. v Jones, 99 AD2d 238[1984]).
Here, we agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to make the prima facieshowing of willful disregard of a court order by the defendants Mark Meyerowitz and KarenMeyerowitz necessary to support a finding of criminal contempt. While those defendants mayhave misinterpreted a certain provision of the judgment, the record nevertheless supports theconclusion [*2]that they made reasonable attempts to complywith that provision soon after the entry of the judgment. Under such circumstances, a finding ofcriminal contempt was not warranted (cf. Ferraro v Ferraro, 272 AD2d 510 [2000]).Skelos, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.