Mollah v. Mollah

1 Citing case

  1. Kudla v. Kudla

    173 A.D.3d 1149 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    We agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to hold him in civil contempt. A finding of contempt requires clear and convincing evidence that (1) a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms, and (3) the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct (see Judiciary Law § 753[A][3] ; El–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 29, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 ; Matter ofMendoza–Pautrat v. Razdan, 160 A.D.3d 963, 964, 74 N.Y.S.3d 626 ; Matter ofHalioris v. Halioris, 126 A.D.3d 973, 974, 6 N.Y.S.3d 267 ). "Once the movant establishes a knowing failure to comply with a clear and unequivocal mandate, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to refute the movant's showing, or to offer evidence of a defense, such as an inability to comply with the order" ( Mollah v. Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 993, 26 N.Y.S.3d 298 ; seeEl–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d at 35, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 ; Matter ofMendoza–Pautrat v. Razdan, 160 A.D.3d at 964, 74 N.Y.S.3d 626 ). A hearing is required only where the papers in opposition raise a factual dispute as to the elements of civil contempt or the existence of a defense (seeShemtov v. Shemtov, 153 A.D.3d 1295, 1296, 61 N.Y.S.3d 278 ; Mollah v. Mollah, 136 A.D.3d at 993, 26 N.Y.S.3d 298 ).