| Alderman v Alderman |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07870 [78 AD3d 620] |
| November 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| William Alderman, Respondent, v Donna Alderman,Appellant. |
—[*1] Fredman Baken & Kosan, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (E. Michael Kosan and Neil A. Fredman ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of theSupreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), dated September 25, 2009, which granted thosebranches of the plaintiff's motions which were to hold her in civil contempt for violating an order of thesame court (Snyder, Ct. Atty. Ref.) dated April 24, 2009, and for an award of an attorney's fee, and(2) an amended order of the same court (Walker, J.) entered October 2, 2009, which granted thosebranches of the plaintiff's motion which were to hold her in civil contempt for violating orders of thesame court (Snyder, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 26, 2009, and January 30, 2009, respectively, andfor an award of an attorney's fee.
Ordered that the order dated September 25, 2009, and the amended order entered October 2,2009, are affirmed, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff.
"To sustain a finding of civil contempt, a court must find that the alleged contemnor violated a lawfulorder of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, of which that party had knowledge, andthat as a result of the violation a right of a party to the litigation was prejudiced" (Incorporated Vil. of Plandome Manor vIoannou, 54 AD3d 365, 366 [2008]; see Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3];McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216, 226-227 [1994]; Astrada v Archer, 71 AD3d 803, 806 [2010]; Town of Huntington v Reuschenberg, 70AD3d 814, 815 [2010]; Casavecchia vMizrahi, 57 AD3d 702, 703 [2008]).
Here, the record reveals that the defendant was aware of the clear and unequivocal mandatescontained in the subject orders previously issued by the Supreme Court, that she violated those orders,and that her conduct defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced the plaintiff's rights or remedies.Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motions which wereto hold the defendant in civil contempt.
Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court's awards of attorney's fees tothe plaintiff were appropriate (see Quinn vQuinn, 73 AD3d 887 [2010]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.