| Matter of Vernon D. (Tarah F.) |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05331 [119 AD3d 784] |
| July 16, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 In the Matter of Vernon D., Jr. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Tarah F., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (ProceedingNo. 1.) In the Matter of Zhaniyah D. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent;Tarah F., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Zhyen G.M.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Tarah F., Appellant, et al.,Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
Robert Hausner, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers andDeborah A. Brenner of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Claire V. Merkineof counsel), attorney for the children.
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10,the mother appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Queens County (McGowan,J.), dated September 6, 2013, which, upon a decision dated August 11, 2013, granted thepetitioner's motion to adjudge her in civil contempt for her violation of a prior order ofprotection of the same court dated August 3, 2010, and (2) an order of the same court,also dated September 6, 2013, which denied her motion, in effect, for leave to reargueher prior motion for unsupervised visitation with the subject children, which had beendenied in an order of the same court dated May 22, 2013.
Ordered that the appeal from the order denying the motion, in effect, for leave to[*2]reargue is dismissed, without costs or disbursements,as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order granting the petitioner's motion to adjudge the mother in civilcontempt for her violation of a prior order of protection of the same court dated August3, 2010, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court properly granted thepetitioner's motion to adjudge her in civil contempt for failing to obey the clear andunequivocal mandate of a prior order of protection directing her to not permit any contactbetween the youngest child and his father (see Matter of McCormick v Axelrod,59 NY2d 574, 584-585 [1983]; El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 114 AD3d 4, 16-17 [2013]; Matter of Administration forChildren's Servs. v Debra W., 95 AD3d 582 [2012]; see also Matter of Lagano vSoule, 86 AD3d 665, 667 [2011]). Moreover, a hearing was not necessary, asthe mother's papers in opposition to the petitioner's motion failed to raise a factualdispute or the existence of a defense (see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 114 AD3d at17; Automated Waste Disposal,Inc. v Mid-Hudson Waste, Inc., 50 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2008]; Jaffe v Jaffe, 44 AD3d825 [2007]; Matter of Garbitelli v Broyles, 257 AD2d 621, 622 [1999]).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Lott andRoman, JJ., concur.