Opinion
8444N Index 100594/14
02-19-2019
Paul FIONDELLA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 345 WEST 70TH TENANTS CORP., Defendant–Respondent.
Charla R. Bikman, East Hampton, for appellant. Marin Goodman, LLP, Harrison (Alexander J. Drago of counsel), for respondent.
Charla R. Bikman, East Hampton, for appellant.
Marin Goodman, LLP, Harrison (Alexander J. Drago of counsel), for respondent.
Richter, J.P., Manzanet, Kapnick, Gesmer, Oing, JJ.
The motion court properly held that the order defendant allegedly violated was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to justify a contempt finding or the imposition of sanctions (see Richards v. Estate of Kaskel, 169 A.D.2d 111, 121, 570 N.Y.S.2d 509 [1st Dept. 1991], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 78 N.Y.2d 1042, 576 N.Y.S.2d 210, 582 N.E.2d 593 [1991] ; see also Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, 111 A.D.2d 28, 488 N.Y.S.2d 693 [1st Dept. 1985] ). Plaintiff cannot prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was an intent on defendant's part to ignore a court order.