Opinion
February 19, 1985
Appeal from the Family Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.).
Order affirmed, with costs.
It is clear from the record that appellant, the child's mother, continuously and consistently withheld visitation from petitioners, the paternal grandparents of the child, in flagrant disregard of numerous Family Court orders ( see, Matter of Milton v Dennis, 99 A.D.2d 565). The finding of contempt and imposition of the statutory fine ( see, Judiciary Law § 773) were proper, in light of appellant's conceded failure and refusal to comply with the terms of outstanding court orders.
Even if appellant believed that the prior orders were erroneous, she was obligated, in the absence of a stay, to obey the court's mandate, until the orders were vacated or reversed ( see, Matter of Balter v Regan, 63 N.Y.2d 630; Margulies v Margulies, 42 A.D.2d 517, appeal dismissed 33 N.Y.2d 894). Moreover, "the mere act of disobedience, regardless of its motive, is sufficient to sustain a finding of civil contempt if such disobedience defeats, impairs, impedes or prejudices the rights of a party" ( Great Neck Pennysaver v Central Nassau Pubs., 65 A.D.2d 616, 616-617; Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]). Petitioners' rights clearly were impeded by appellant.
It would be inequitable to deprive petitioners of the pleasure of their granddaughter's company merely because of the animosity which exists between them and the mother of the child ( see, Matter of Vacula v Blume, 53 A.D.2d 633; Matter of Layton v Foster, 61 N.Y.2d 747, 750). It would also be fundamentally unfair, as well as contrary to the administration of justice, to permit appellant to justify her noncompliance based on advice from experts, especially where the court explicitly rejected the testimony proffered by those experts.
We have reviewed appellant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Titone, J.P., Thompson, O'Connor and Eiber, JJ., concur.