Mollah v. Mollah

36 Citing cases

  1. Mendoza-Pautrat v. Razdan

    160 A.D.3d 963 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 34 times

    Prejudice is shown where the party's actions "were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party" ( Matter of Figueroa–Rolon v. Torres, 121 A.D.3d 684, 685, 993 N.Y.S.2d 348 ; seeSavel v. Savel, 153 A.D.3d 872, 873, 61 N.Y.S.3d 97 ). In order for contempt sanctions to be imposed pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753(A), "willfulness" need not be shown (seeEl–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d at 33–35, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 ; Dreher v. Martinez, 155 A.D.3d 688, 689–690, 64 N.Y.S.3d 74 ). Once the movant makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to refute that showing, or to offer evidence of a defense such as an inability to comply with the order (seeEl–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d at 35, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 ; Matter of Fitzgerald, 144 A.D.3d at 907, 41 N.Y.S.3d 271; Mollah v. Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 993, 26 N.Y.S.3d 298 ). Here, the hearing record established that the father violated unequivocal mandates of the Family Court, of which he was aware, by removing the children from school and vacationing with them for a one-week period in 2015 without timely notice to the mother, failing to facilitate daily phone contact between the mother and the children during that period, and failing to complete the required parenting training.

  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 ).

  3. Shemtov v. Shemtov

    153 A.D.3d 1295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 13 times

    Old Stone Hill Rd. Assoc., 66 A.D.3d 944, 946, 889 N.Y.S.2d 598 ). To prevail on a motion to hold a party in civil contempt, the movant must establish by clear and convincing evidence (1) that a lawful order of the court was in effect, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, (2) the appearance, with reasonable certainty, that the order was disobeyed, (3) that the party to be held in contempt had knowledge of the court's order, and (4) prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation (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 of Fitzgerald, 144 A.D.3d 906, 907, 41 N.Y.S.3d 271 ). 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 (see El–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d at 35, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 ; Matter of Fitzgerald, 144 A.D.3d at 907, 41 N.Y.S.3d 271; Mollah v. Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 993, 26 N.Y.S.3d 298 ; Lundgren v. Lundgren, 127 A.D.3d 938, 940–941, 7 N.Y.S.3d 393 ). A hearing is required only if the papers in opposition raise a factual dispute as to the elements of civil contempt, or the existence of a defense (see Matter of Fitzgerald, 144 A.D.3d at 907, 41 N.Y.S.3d 271; Matter of Savas v. Bruen, 139 A.D.3d 736, 737, 30 N.Y.S.3d 673 ; El–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 114 A.D.3d 4, 17, 978 N.Y.S.2d 239, affd. 26 N.Y.3d 19, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 ).

  4. Castillo v. Banner Grp. LLC

    63 Misc. 3d 1235 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2019)   Cited 10 times

    When the record on the motion practice shows no fact dispute as to the elements of contempt, the Court may make a finding of contempt without a hearing. Martin v. Martin , 163 AD3d 1139, 1141 (3rd Dept. 2018), Mollah v. Mollah , 136 AD3d 992, 994 (2nd Dept. 2016), Hush v. Taylor , 121 AD3d 1363, 1365 (3rd Dept. 2014), Speirs v. Leffer , 246 AD2d 590, 590-91 (2nd Dept. 1998). On this record, then, Respondents are in contempt of Court.

  5. Pinto v. Pinto

    151 A.D.3d 715 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 10 times

    Under the circumstances of this case, where the plaintiff was compelled to bring a motion to enforce the terms of the stipulation against the defendant and prevailed in doing so, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding her a reasonable attorney's fee (see Domestic Relations Law § 238 ; Mollah v. Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 994, 26 N.Y.S.3d 298 ; Patete v. Rodriguez, 109 A.D.3d 595, 599, 971 N.Y.S.2d 109 ; D'Anna v. D'Anna, 17 A.D.3d 400, 793 N.Y.S.2d 454 ; Lazansky v. Lazansky, 148 A.D.2d 501, 539 N.Y.S.2d 24 ).

  6. In re Fitzgerald

    144 A.D.3d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 8 times

    To find a party in civil contempt of court, the movant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that a lawful order of the court was in effect, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, (2) the appearance, with reasonable certainty, that the order was disobeyed, (3) that the party to be held in contempt had knowledge of the court's order, and (4) prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation (see El–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 29, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 ; Thimm v. Thimm, 137 A.D.3d 775, 776, 28 N.Y.S.3d 693 ). Once the party moving to hold another party in civil contempt 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 (see Mollah v. Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 993, 26 N.Y.S.3d 298 ). A hearing is required only if the papers in opposition raise a factual dispute as to the elements of civil contempt, or the existence of a defense (see Matter of Savas v. Bruen, 139 A.D.3d 736, 737, 30 N.Y.S.3d 673 ).

  7. Castello v. Castello

    144 A.D.3d 729 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    With respect to the order dated February 19, 2015, which granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for counsel fees based upon the defendant's contempt, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in awarding the plaintiff counsel fees without first conducting a hearing. The defendant did not request such a hearing and, thus, he waived his right to one (see Mollah v. Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 994, 26 N.Y.S.3d 298 ; Delijani v. Delijani, 100 A.D.3d 951, 952, 954 N.Y.S.2d 479 ; Bogannam v. Bogannam, 60 A.D.3d 985, 987, 877 N.Y.S.2d 336 ).

  8. Ackerman v. Midura

    145 A.D.3d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 3 times

    The defendant appeals. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff attorneys' fees (see Mollah v. Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 994, 26 N.Y.S.3d 298 ; Le v. Le, 82 A.D.3d 846, 846, 918 N.Y.S.2d 377 ). We note that the plaintiff has not cross-appealed and, therefore, we review the amount of the award solely to determine whether it was excessive (see CPLR 5501 ; Hecht v. New York, 60 N.Y.2d 57, 61–62, 467 N.Y.S.2d 187, 454 N.E.2d 527 ).

  9. 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 ).

  10. Rosner v. Rosner

    143 A.D.3d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 3 times

    He did not request a hearing on the issue of an award of attorney's fees, and did not object to the resolution of the issue based on written submissions. Thus, he waived the right to a hearing on that issue (see Mollah v. Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 993, 26 N.Y.S.3d 298 ; Delijani v. Delijani, 100 A.D.3d 951, 952, 954 N.Y.S.2d 479 ). The court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an award of attorney's fees, inasmuch as the plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement for attorney's fees pursuant to the default provision in the parties' stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce (see Garcia v. Garcia, 104 A.D.3d 806, 807, 961 N.Y.S.2d 517 ; Martin v. Martin, 92 A.D.3d 646, 937 N.Y.S.2d 886 ).