Opinion
2001-03182, 2001-03183, 2001-03184, 2001-09286, 2001-09288
Submitted September 10, 2002
October 1, 2002
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered August 16, 2000, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Garson, J.), dated August 23, 2000, which granted the defendant's motion to appoint a receiver of the property located at 23-14 Broadway in Astoria, Queens, (2) an order of the same court, dated April 4, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the defendant's motion to hold the plaintiff in contempt, (3) an order of the same court, dated April 10, 2001, which, among other things, granted the defendant's motion to hold the plaintiff in contempt and remanded him to the New York City Department of Corrections for a period of incarceration of 90 days, (4) an order of the same court, dated July 5, 2001, which denied the plaintiff's motion for recusal, and (5) an order of the same court, dated October 17, 2001, which denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate the sale of the property located at 23-14 Broadway in Astoria, Queens.
J. Papapanayotou, Long Island City, N.Y., for appellant.
Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated April 4, 2001, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated April 10, 2001; and it is further,
ORDERED that the orders dated August 23, 2000, April 10, 2001, July 5, 2001, and October 17, 2001, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well settled that a finding of civil contempt, predicated upon a violation of a court order, must be based upon a determination that there existed a lawful court order expressing an "unequivocal mandate," that the person to be held in contempt of such order had actual knowledge of its terms, and that the offending conduct "defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced" a right or remedy of the complaining party (see McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216, 226; Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583; Matter of Hoglund v. Hoglund, 234 A.D.2d 794; Paulmann v. Paulmann, 224 A.D.2d 891, 892). The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff was in contempt of court, as the plaintiff impeded the defendant's efforts to comply with the provisions of the judgment of divorce entered August 16, 2000, which required the parties to sell a piece of property located at 23-14 Broadway in Astoria, Queens.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.