From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haber v. Haber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1996
225 A.D.2d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 18, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In order to sustain a finding of contempt based on an alleged violation of a court order, it is necessary to establish that a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect (see, Guerriere v Guerriere, 188 A.D.2d 583, 584; see also, Matter of Frandsen v Frandsen, 190 A.D.2d 975, 976). Furthermore, a party who seeks to hold a spouse in contempt of court pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 245 must ordinarily exhaust her alternative remedies under that section. However, when the alternative remedies would be ineffectual, they need not be exhausted (see, Rosenblitt v Rosenblitt, 121 A.D.2d 375).

The defendant was properly adjudged to be in contempt of the pendente lite order dated August 27, 1994. The order clearly and unequivocally required the plaintiff to obtain medical insurance on behalf of the defendant and the parties' two children and to pay all ordinary or routine unreimbursed medical expenses incurred by them, which he failed to do. Moreover, the record reveals that alternative remedies under Domestic Relations Law § 245 would be ineffectual.

The Supreme Court properly resolved the contempt issue on the papers submitted without holding a hearing (see, Matter of Benny v Benny, 199 A.D.2d 384).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Haber v. Haber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1996
225 A.D.2d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Haber v. Haber

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE HABER, Appellant, v. LISA S. HABER, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 18, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 664 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
639 N.Y.S.2d 476

Citing Cases

Sutton v. Sutton

The defendant tendered proof demonstrating that the plaintiff was named a “beneficiary” on the defendant's…

Rozzo v. Rozzo

Finally, we note that in utilizing the post-judgment remedies of CPLR article 52, the plaintiff satisfied…