Accordingly, the court finds that petitioner has established that respondents Highpoint Associates VI, LLC, Daniel Ohebshalom a/k/a Dan Shalom, and Robin Ignico are in civil contempt of the December 6, 2022 Interim Consent Order by clear and convincing evidence (see El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d at 29). As respondents have not raised a factual dispute as to the elements of civil contempt or a viable defense, a hearing is not required for the civil contempt finding to be made (see El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d at 17; Mollahv.Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 993 [2d Dept 2016]).
Consequently, the court finds that petitioner has established that respondents Highpoint Associates VI, LLC and Gustavo Santana are in civil contempt of the January 31, 2022 Consent Order by clear and convincing evidence (see El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d at 29). As respondents have not raised a factual dispute as to the elements of civil contempt or a viable defense, a hearing is not required for the civil contempt finding to be made (see El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d at 17; Mollah v. Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 993 [2d Dept 2016]). The court declines to impose civil contempt individually on subsequently-joined respondents Robin Ignico and Daniel Ohebshalom a/k/a Dan Shalom, as they were not parties to the January 31, 2022 Consent Order and petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that they were intended to be bound by the order in their individual capacities (cf. Citibank, N.A. v. Anthony Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 86 A.D.2d 828, 829 [1st Dept 1982] [Finding "sole stockholder and president" of corporate defendant to be liable for contempt where he was found to be in possession of automobiles subject to a restraining order]).
Where there are no triable issues of fact, the finding of contempt can be made without a hearing. (SeeMartin v Martin , 163 AD3d 1139, 1141 [3rd Dept 2018] ; Mollah v Mollah , 136 AD3d 992, 994 [2d Dept 2016] ; Hercules , 2021 NY Slip Op 50185[U] ; Castillo v Banner Group LLC , 62 Misc 3d 1235[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50897[U] [Civ Ct, NY County 2019].) Respondents remaining arguments that their good faith effort in correcting most of the violations and diligent efforts to correct the outstanding ones serve as justification to either enlarge their time to comply with the Order to Correct or decline to hold them in contempt are also without merit.