Opinion
2008-22 K C.
Decided October 6, 2009.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (George Michael Heymann, J.), entered August 2, 2007. The order denied tenant's motion to hold landlord in civil contempt.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: GOLIA, J.P., PESCE and RIOS, JJ.
In this nonpayment summary proceeding, the parties entered into a series of stipulations in which tenant agreed to pay the arrears and landlord agreed to make certain repairs in the apartment. During the pendency of a motion by tenant to enforce a November 24, 2006 stipulation, which motion was adjourned on consent twice by so-ordered stipulations setting forth similar repair terms, tenant moved, by order to show cause dated May 3, 2007, to hold landlord in civil contempt for, inter alia, failure to comply with the so-ordered stipulations. The court denied tenant's contempt motion, and tenant appeals.
"A party seeking to hold another in civil contempt bears the burden of proof. In order to prevail on a motion to hold another in civil contempt, the movant must demonstrate that the party charged violated a clear and unequivocal court order, thereby prejudicing a right of another party to the litigation" ( Rienzi v Rienzi, 23 AD3d 447, 448-449 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). On March 2, 2007, in a so-ordered stipulation, tenant consented to adjourn tenant's motion to enforce the November 24, 2006 stipulation to March 30, 2007, and the parties agreed that all repairs would be completed by the latter date. On March 30, 2007, in a second so-ordered stipulation, tenant consented to another adjournment "for compliance" to May 10, 2007. Consequently, tenant's May 3, 2007 order to show cause was properly denied since, at that time, landlord cannot be deemed to have been in violation of the March 30, 2007 stipulation, and the March 2, 2007 stipulation was superseded by the March 30, 2007 stipulation.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed. We reach no other issue.
Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Golia, J.P., concurs in a separate memorandum.
While in agreement with my colleagues on the law, I am nevertheless troubled by the fact that the lower court permitted landlord to obtain so many extensions over an extended period of time to make repairs of these numerous and serious class B and class C violations.