| Bais Yoel Ohel Feige v Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar of Kiryas Joel,Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07875 [78 AD3d 626] |
| November 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Bais Yoel Ohel Feige et al., Appellants, v Congregation YetevLev D'Satmar of Kiryas Joel, Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1] Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to realproperty, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the SupremeCourt, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated November 30, 2009, which, among other things, granted thatbranch of the defendants' motion which was to hold the plaintiffs in civil contempt for violating ajudgment of the same court entered February 14, 2008, as modified by a decision and order of thisCourt dated September 22, 2009, and thereupon, inter alia, imposed a fine in the sum of $250.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"A motion to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the motioncourt" (Chambers v Old Stone Hill Rd.Assoc., 66 AD3d 944, 946 [2009]; see Educational Reading Aids Corp. v Young,175 AD2d 152 [1991]). In order to prevail on such a motion, the moving party must demonstrate thatthe party charged with contempt violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court, therebyprejudicing the moving party's rights (see McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216, 226 [1994]; Chambers v Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 66AD3d 944 [2009]; Matter of Rothschildv Edwards, 63 AD3d 744, 745 [2009]; Galanos v Galanos, 46 AD3d 507, 508 [2007]; Rienzi v Rienzi, 23 AD3d 447, 448[2005]). The mere act of disobedience, regardless of the motive, is sufficient to sustain a finding of civilcontempt if it defeats, impairs, impedes, or prejudices a party's rights (see Goldsmith vGoldsmith, 261 AD2d 576 [1999]; Cannizzaro v Cannizzaro, 186 AD2d 776 [1992]).
Here, the Supreme Court properly held the plaintiffs in contempt for violating the judgment enteredFebruary 14, 2008, as modified by the decision and order of this Court dated September 22, 2009 (see Bais Yoel Ohel Feige v Congregation YetevLev D'Satmar of Kiryas Joel, 65 AD3d 1176 [2009]). The judgment declared that theplaintiffs' property was being used as a nonconforming, unlawful house of worship, subject to the siteplan review provisions of the Code of the Village of Kiryas Joel, and enjoined the plaintiffs fromcontinuing such use pending an appropriate municipal application and determination (see id.).On the instant motion, the defendants [*2]established that the plaintiffscontinued to use the subject premises as a house of worship despite not having obtained site planreview from the Village of Kiryas Joel Planning Board, thereby prejudicing the rights of the defendants.Moreover, since the plaintiffs admit to such continued use of their property, no factual dispute existedas to the plaintiffs' conduct that was unresolvable from the papers on the motion and, therefore, ahearing was not warranted (see Matter ofBrown v Mudry, 55 AD3d 828, 829 [2008]; Jaffe v Jaffe, 44 AD3d 825, 826 [2007]).
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Engand Lott, JJ., concur.