| Soehngen v Soehngen |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00526 [58 AD3d 829] |
| January 27, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Debra Soehngen, Respondent, v Joseph Soehngen,Appellant. |
—[*1]
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals (1) from findings of factof the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), dated June 19, 2007, and (2), aslimited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court (Ross, J.), dated December 19,2007, as granted the plaintiff's motion to find him in contempt of a pendente lite support orderdated January 3, 2005, and imposed a period of incarceration of 90 days, and, after a nonjurytrial on the issue of whether there were grounds for the award of a judgment of divorce, and uponthe findings of fact, made after a separate nonjury trial on the issue of the amount of income tobe imputed to him, imputed income to him in the sum of $340,000 per year, directed the entry ofjudgment in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the sum of $124,510, and directed an awardto the plaintiff of an attorney's fee in the sum of $5,000.
Ordered that the appeal from the findings of fact dated June 19, 2007, is dismissed, withoutcosts or disbursements, as no appeal lies therefrom (see ELRAC, Inc. v Belessis, 303AD2d 445, 446 [2003]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated December 19, 2007, is affirmed insofar as appealed from,without costs or disbursements.
Initially, we note that although the defendant has completed his sentence, the appeal from somuch of the order dated December 19, 2007, as found him in contempt of a pendente lite supportorder dated [*2]January 3, 2005, has not been rendered academic,in light of the enduring consequences which might flow from the finding that he violated thesupport order (see Matter of Saintime vSaint Surin, 40 AD3d 1103 [2007]; Matter of Christine G., 36 AD3d 615, 616 [2007]; Matter of Er-Mei Y., 29 AD3d1013 [2006]).
The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant was in contempt of the pendentelite support order dated January 3, 2005, as the record revealed clear and convincing evidencethat the defendant willfully violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court, therebyprejudicing the plaintiff's right to temporary child support and maintenance (see Matter ofMcCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583 [1983]; Massimi v Massimi, 56 AD3d 624 [2008]; Rienzi v Rienzi, 23 AD3d 447,449 [2005]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, McCarthyand Leventhal, JJ., concur.