Opinion
May 20, 1999
Appeal from the order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.).
Supreme Court properly held defendant in civil contempt without holding a hearing, since it was clear from the papers submitted to the court that there was no issue of fact to be resolved ( see, Coronet Capital Co. v. Spodek, 202 A.D.2d 20, 29-30), and, in any event, defendant never requested a hearing in opposing the contempt application. In violation of the plain language of the court's prior orders, which directed defendant "NOT to go to the [parties'] child's school for any reason whatsoever", defendant admitted that he went to the school for the purpose of leaving a package for his daughter. Defendant's self-serving and conclusory claim that he had forgotten that the orders prohibited him from going to the school "for any reason whatsoever", not just from going to the school for the purpose of seeing his daughter, is insufficient to raise an issue of fact, in view of the unmistakable meaning of the order, which defendant does not deny having received and read. Moreover, defendant's belligerent statements to plaintiff the evening after the visit to the school, also not denied by him, completely contradict any claim of intent to comply with the court's directive. The court also properly took into account defendant's past history of flouting its orders in this matter. Contrary to defendant's assertions, the order holding him in contempt does specifically find that his conduct prejudiced plaintiff and the parties' daughter, as required by Judiciary Law § 753 (A), and such finding is fully supported by the record. We find the fine excessive to the extent indicated and modify accordingly.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.