Opinion
475 CA 22-01624
06-30-2023
Jacqueline MARKHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James P. MARKHAM, Defendant-Respondent.
LACY KATZEN LLP, ROCHESTER (DAVID D. MACKNIGHT OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. TULLY RINCKEY, PLLC, ROCHESTER (THOMAS SETSER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
LACY KATZEN LLP, ROCHESTER (DAVID D. MACKNIGHT OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
TULLY RINCKEY, PLLC, ROCHESTER (THOMAS SETSER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., BANNISTER, MONTOUR, AND GREENWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this post-divorce action, plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing her application by order to show cause seeking to hold defendant in contempt for failure to comply with an order and judgment dated August 28, 2018, requiring defendant to pay certain arrears. We affirm.
As a preliminary matter, although not raised by the parties and although "[n]o appeal lies from a mere decision" ( Kuhn v. Kuhn , 129 A.D.2d 967, 967, 514 N.Y.S.2d 284 [4th Dept. 1987] ; see generally CPLR 5501 [c] ; 5512 [a]), we conclude that the paper appealed from meets the essential requirements of an order, and we therefore treat it as such (see Matter of Louka v. Shehatou , 67 A.D.3d 1476, 1476, 888 N.Y.S.2d 841 [4th Dept. 2009] ). "In order to prevail on a motion to punish a party for civil contempt, the movant must demonstrate that the party charged with contempt violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court, thereby prejudicing the movant's rights ... The movant has the burden of proving contempt by clear and convincing evidence" ( Wolfe v. Wolfe , 71 A.D.3d 878, 878, 895 N.Y.S.2d 855 [2d Dept. 2010] ; see El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan , 114 A.D.3d 4, 10, 978 N.Y.S.2d 239 [2d Dept. 2013], affd 26 N.Y.3d 19, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 [2015] ). Here, plaintiff failed to meet her burden inasmuch as it is undisputed that defendant made the monthly payments as specified in the August 28, 2018 order and judgment. Moreover, contrary to plaintiff's contention, the provision in the order and judgment stating that plaintiff was owed $23,371.82 in arrears as of May 4, 2018 " ‘did not provide any time for payment [of that total amount of arrears] and therefore, did not constitute a clear and unequivocal mandate’ " requiring defendant to pay that amount within a certain period of time ( Belkhir v. Amrane-Belkhir , 128 A.D.3d 1382, 1382, 8 N.Y.S.3d 752 [4th Dept. 2015] ). In light of our determination, plaintiff's remaining contentions are academic.