JC Manufacturing Corp. v. NPI Electric, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Giano v. Ioannou

    41 A.D.3d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 7 times

    Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. To succeed on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the moving party must show that the alleged contemnor violated a clear and unequivocal court order and that the violation prejudiced a right of a party to the litigation ( see Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]; McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574; Matter of CBS Rubbish Removal v Town of Babylon Sanitation Commn., 249 AD2d 541). Inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the conduct complained of compromised his rights, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to hold the defendant in civil contempt for failure to comply with an order dated October 24, 2005 ( see Matter of CBS Rubbish Removal v Town of Babylon Sanitation Commn., supra; Bay Parkway Super Clean Car Wash v Accurate Auto Repair, 220 AD2d 549, 550; JC Mfg. Corp. v NPI Elec., 179 AD2d 721, 722).

  2. CBS Rubbish Removal, Inc. v. Town of Babylon Sanitation Commission

    249 A.D.2d 541 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. To succeed on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the moving party must show that the alleged contemnor violated a clear and unequivocal court order and-that the violation prejudiced a right of a party to the litigation ( see, McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216; Troiano v. Ilaria, 205 A.D.2d 752; JC Mfg. Corp. v. NPI Elec., 179 A.D.2d 721; Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]). Inasmuch as the appellants failed to demonstrate how the conduct complained of compromised their rights, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion which was to punish the petitioner, CBS Rubbish Removal, Inc. (hereinafter CBS), for civil contempt. To be found guilty of criminal contempt, the contemnor must be shown to have violated an order with a higher degree of willfulness than is required in a civil contempt proceeding ( see, Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection v. Department of Envtl. Conservation, 70 N.Y.2d 233, 240; Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583).

  3. Bay Parkway Super Clean v. Accurate Auto

    220 A.D.2d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 6 times

    To sustain a finding of civil contempt based upon a violation of a court order, it must appear with reasonable certainty that the party charged has violated a clear and unequivocal mandate and that the conduct impaired or prejudiced the rights of a party to the litigation (see, Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended on other grounds 60 N.Y.2d 652; JC Mfg. Corp. v. NPI Elec., 179 A.D.2d 721, 722; City of Poughkeepsie v. Hetey, 121 A.D.2d 496, 497). The defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff Anthony Boumoussa violated a prior court order or that their rights were in any manner impaired or prejudiced.

  4. Ramirez v. New York State Department of Health

    219 A.D.2d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. To succeed on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the moving party must show that the alleged contemnor has, with knowledge of its existence, violated a clear and unequivocal court order and that the violation prejudiced a right of a party to the litigation (see, McCain v Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216; Troiano v Ilaria, 205 A.D.2d 752; JC Mfg. Corp. v NPI Elec., 179 A.D.2d 721; Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]). Inasmuch as the petitioners failed to demonstrate how the infractions complained of prejudiced their rights, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion to punish the respondent Orange County Department of Health for civil contempt.

  5. Troiano v. Ilaria

    205 A.D.2d 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)   Cited 10 times

    Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. To succeed on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the moving party must show that the alleged contemnor has violated a clear and unequivocal court order and that the violation prejudiced a right of a party to the litigation (see, McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216; JC Mfg. Corp. v. NPI Elec., 179 A.D.2d 721; Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]). While the plaintiff's claim that the respondent disobeyed the temporary restraining order finds support in the record, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how the infractions complained of compromised his rights (see, City of Poughkeepsie v. Hetey, 121 A.D.2d 496; Powell v. Clauss, 93 A.D.2d 883). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to punish the respondent for civil contempt. Moreover, the record does not indicate that the respondent's conduct in disobeying the order rose to the level of willfulness which would support a finding of criminal contempt (see, Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583; Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [3]). O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

  6. Matter of Penepent

    198 A.D.2d 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

    Supreme Court also improvidently exercised its discretion in holding respondent in contempt for his failure to comply with the order requiring him to post additional security. Petitioner made no showing that respondent's violation of the order was calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede or prejudice petitioner's rights or remedies (see, Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]; JC Mfg. Corp. v NPI Elec., 179 A.D.2d 721; City of Poughkeepsie v Hetey, 121 A.D.2d 496, 497; Matter of Planning Bd. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 75 A.D.2d 686).