Mollah v. Mollah

36 Citing cases

  1. Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of the N.Y. v. Ohebshalom

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 31258 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    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]).

  2. C.S.G. v. C.R.G.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 50476 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    Here, plaintiff was compelled to bring this motion to enforce the terms of the Judgment of Divorce, and defendant has failed to rebut the statutory presumption that plaintiff, as the less monied spouse, is entitled to attorney's fees (see Mollah v Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 994 [2d Dept 2016]). Plaintiff has submitted itemized billing statements as proof of the attorney's fees incurred by her, which establish the "extent and value of [the] services" rendered to her (see Yakobowicz v Yakobowicz, 217 A.D.3d 733, 737 [2d Dept 2023]).

  3. Silla v. Silla

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 30642 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    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) me movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct and (4) prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation. Tedesco v. Elio, 211 A.D.3d 1074, 1076 [2d Dept., 2022]; (Latterman v Latterman, 174 A.D.3d518, 519 [2d Dept 2019]; see also El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19,29 [2015]; Battinelli v Battinelli, 192 A.D.3d 957 [2d Dept' 2021]; Matter of Lallas v .Bolin, 162 A.D.3d 1029, 1030 [2d Dept 2018]; Shemtovv Shemtov, 153 A.D.3d 1295,1295 [2d Dept 2017]; Mollah v Mullah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 993 [2d Dept 2016]; Casler v Casler, 131 A.D.3d664, 665 [2d Dept 2015]; Lundgren v Lundgren, 127 A.D.3d 938, 940 [2d Dept 2015]). Satisfying the element of prejudice does not require that "the disobedience be deliberate or willful, rather, the mere act of disobedience, regardless of its motive, is sufficient if such disobedience defeats, impairs, impedes, or prejudices the rights or remedies of a party" (see Matter of Philie v Singer, 19 A.D.3d 1041/1042, 913 N.Y.S.2d 745[2d Dept, 2010];see also El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 35, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475,41 NE;3d340 [2015]).

  4. Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. of City of New York v. Ohebshalom

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 51313 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    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]).

  5. Cervera v. Cervera

    218 A.D.3d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Under the circumstances of this case, where the plaintiff was compelled to engage in motion practice to enforce the terms of the stipulation against the defendant, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding reasonable attorneys' fees (see Domestic Relations Law ยง 238; Mollah v Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 994; Matter of Rutuelo v Rutuelo, 98 A.D.3d 518, 519).

  6. Samaritan-Compass VI Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. 1293-95 Rodman LLC

    217 A.D.3d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    In opposition, Rodman failed to refute Samaritan's showing and failed to establish a defense (see Mollah v Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 993 [2d Dept 2016]). To the extent Rodman believed that Samaritan was not following the terms of the order and license summary or that Samaritan's schedule was unworkable, its remedy was to move for a hearing, not to engage in noncompliance (see Peters v Sage Group Assoc., 238 A.D.2d 123, 123 [1st Dept 1997]; see also 1319 Third Ave. Realty Corp. v Chateaubriant Rest. Dev. Co., LLC, 57 A.D.3d 340, 341 [1st Dept 2008]).

  7. F.A. v. S.A.

    77 Misc. 3d 1228 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    Furthermore, in Mollah v. Mollah, the Second Department held that where a party was compelled to bring a motion to enforce the terms of an order, the court therein providently exercised its discretion in awarding attorney's fees, considering, inter alia, the relative merits of the partiesโ€™ positions at the time and the documented time, effort, and skill of counsel. See generallyMollah v. Mollah , 136 AD3d 992 (2d Dept. 2016). The Court finds that since the Plaintiff was compelled to bring application to enforce the terms of the February Order, the Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of counsel fees incurred therewith.

  8. Wenig Saltiel, LLP v. Bozeman

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 50939 (N.Y. App. Term 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Plaintiff demonstrated that the judicial subpoena, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, had been in effect; that the subpoena had been disobeyed; that defendant had been served with the subpoena and thus had knowledge of its terms; and that plaintiff had been prejudiced by defendant's failure to appear at the postjudgment deposition (see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 28-29 [2015]; Madigan v Berkeley Capital, LLC, 205 A.D.3d 900, 905 [2022]; Zeidman v Zeidman, 202 A.D.3d 893, 894 [2022]; Matter of Binong Xu v Sullivan, 155 A.D.3d 1031, 1032 [2017]). The burden then shifted to defendant to refute that 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; Matter of Mendoza-Pautrat v Razdan, 160 A.D.3d 963, 964 [2018]; Mollah v Mollah, 136 A.D.3d 992, 993 [2016]). Defendant, who defaulted on the motion, failed to meet that burden.

  9. Anumudu v. Bennett

    72 Misc. 3d 1219 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2021)

    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.

  10. M.L. v. J.L.

    71 Misc. 3d 1204 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    Indeed, Defendant "has utterly failed to give any convincing evidence that he made a reasonable and fair effort to comply" with his maintenance obligation (seeDidero v Didero , 10 AD2d 875 [2d Dept 1960] ). Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant knowingly disobeyed the mandates clearly expressed in the November 29, 2016 Decision and Order and July 20, 2017 Judgment of Divorce to pay Plaintiff maintenance and child support, thereby prejudicing Plaintiff's right to receive those funds (seeShemtov v Shemtov , 153 AD3d 1295 [2d Dept 2017], citing Judiciary Law ยง 753[A][3] ; see alsoEl-Dehdan , 26 NY3d at 29 ; Matter of Fitzgerald , 144 AD3d 906, 907 [2d Dept 2016] ; Mollah v Mollah , 136 AD3d 992 [2d Dept 2016] ). Consequently, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to hold Defendant in contempt for nonpayment of his maintenance and child support obligations.