Mollah v. Mollah

2 Citing cases

  1. Tara W. v. Yitzchok W.

    66 Misc. 3d 1223 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

    Discussion In order for a movant to prevail on a motion to hold a party in civil contempt, he or she "must establish by 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" ( Latterman v. Latterman , 174 AD3d 518, 519 [2d Dept 2019] ; see alsoEl-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan , 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015] ; Shemtov v. Shemtov , 153 AD3d 1295, 1295 [2d Dept 2017] ; Mollah v. Mollah , 136 AD3d 992, 993 [2d Dept 2016] ; Casler v. Casler , 131 AD3d 664, 665 [2d Dept 2015] ; Lundgren v. Lundgren , 127 AD3d 938, 940 [2d Dept 2015] ). "Once the moving party makes this showing, 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" ( Latterman , 174 AD3d at 519 ; see alsoEl-Dehdan , 26 NY3d at 35 ; Mollah , 136 AD3d at 993 )

  2. Cook v. Cook

    142 A.D.3d 530 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 27 times

    Second, it must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed. Third, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order.... Fourth, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated’ ” (Thimm v. Thimm, 137 A.D.3d 775, 776, 28 N.Y.S.3d 693, quoting El–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 29, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 [citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted]; see Mollah v. Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 993, 26 N.Y.S.3d 298 ; Wood v. Wood, 134 A.D.3d 1028, 1029, 22 N.Y.S.3d 499 ). Here, the father failed to sustain his burden because the evidence did not establish that the mother's actions with respect to the father's telephone communication with the children violated an unequivocal mandate contained in the settlement agreement or the so-ordered stipulation of settlement (see Matter of Hughes v. Kameneva, 96 A.D.3d 845, 946 N.Y.S.2d 211 ; Matter of Nelson v. Nelson, 194 A.D.2d 828, 598 N.Y.S.2d 609 ; Matter of Frandsen v. Frandsen, 190 A.D.2d 975, 594 N.Y.S.2d 87 ).