First, at the time the alleged violation occurred, the agency had not served a copy of the May 26, 2010 temporary order upon the father and the agency does not allege that he had been provided with actual notice. A party cannot be held in contempt where he was not served with copies of the underlying order and it was not affirmatively established that he had actual knowledge of the order ( Puro v Puro, 39 AD2d 873 [1st Dept 1972], affd 33 NY2d 805; Graham v Graham, 152 AD2d 653 [2d Dept 1989] [to sustain a finding of contempt based upon a violation of a court order, it is necessary to establish that a lawful court order, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect and that the person alleged to have violated the order had actual knowledge of its terms]; Gerelli Ins. Agency, Inc. v Gerelli, 23 AD3d 341 [2d Dept 2005] [in order for a party to be held in contempt they must have had knowledge of the order that was violated]; Eves v Ray, 10 Misc 3d 1058[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 52018[U] [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2005], revd on other grounds 42 AD3d 481 [2d Dept 2007] [the failure to serve a temporary order of protection or give notice to respondent warranted dismissal of contempt allegations]). Second, since the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the agency employees a temporary order of protection, the underlying order cannot support a finding of contempt.

had not served a copy of the May 26, 2010 temporary order upon the father and the agency does not allege that he had been provided with actual notice. A party cannot be held in contempt where he was not served with copies of the underlying order, and it was not affirmatively established that he had actual knowledge of the order ( Puro v. Puro, 39 A.D.2d 873, 333 N.Y.S.2d 560 [1st Dept. 1972], affirmed 33 N.Y.2d 805, 350 N.Y.S.2d 658, 305 N.E.2d 778 [1973]; Graham v. Graham, 152 A.D.2d 653, 543 N.Y.S.2d 735 [2d Dept. 1989] [to sustain a finding of contempt based upon a violation of a court order, it is necessary to establish that a lawful court order, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect and that the person alleged to have violated the order had actual knowledge of its terms]; Gerelli Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Gerelli, 23 A.D.3d 341, 806 N.Y.S.2d 71 [2d Dept. 2005] [in order for a party to be held in contempt they must have had knowledge of the order that was violated]; Eves v. Ray, 10 Misc.3d 1058 [A], 2005 WL 3423440 [Sup. Court, Suffolk County 2005], reversed on other grounds 42 A.D.3d 481, 840 N.Y.S.2d 105 [2d Dept. 2007] [the failure to serve a temporary order of protection or give notice to respondent warranted dismissal of contempt allegations] ).